an amendment to S-55 that Martin has had drafted and I'll walk us through that part of that. Good morning everyone, Lou and Marlon from Legislative Council. And just so everyone is aware, I'm just helping out Eric basically because he's so busy. So sometimes you see Eric, he's the council on matters. Sometimes they see me filling in and we're just doing it because both bodies are considering legislation pertaining to firearms. So I am going to run through a proposed amendment from Representative LaLonde as to S-55. And of course that is the bill that Eric did to walk through for you yesterday. And what this amendment does is it adds five new sections to the bill that Eric described to you yesterday. I'll go through them in the quarter. The first one would be a new section eight and this concerns large capacity ammunition feeding devices and other large capacity magazines. I don't plan to read word for word. I'll go through and describe what's in it but please stop any of you have any questions.  It would create a new 13 view state 4021 which would state you see on line seven and eight that a person shall not manufacture, possess or transfer a large capacity, excuse me, ammunition feeding device. And if you jump to page two you'll see the definition of what is a large capacity ammunition feeding device. It is on lines 14 through 20 in subsection E and it states that a large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device manufactured after July 1st, 2018 that has a capacity of 10 rounds of ammunition or more. I'm sorry, yes? You may ask a question. I'm just trying to clarify a question. Going through, yeah, with respect to this because it might be on some of the other new criminal companies that are in items that are now if this is passed or are no longer allowed to be possessed. Do any of these sections provide any kind of, what's it called, grandfathering falls or a way to safely get rid of this stuff if you currently have it? Well, it does if you just hold on for one moment I'll get back to that. But yes, here's a grandfather clause. So, and there's also some carve outs that go through those in just a moment. So, the definition on page two and E is based on a magazine or a similar device that has a capacity of or that can be restored or converted to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Is everyone clear on that? Converted, would that be a point of contention about whether you could or could convert? I guess that's beyond the scope of what we're discussing. I don't know if it'd be a point of contention but I think you are correct that it is not just a, for example, like in a magazine somehow could be modified to contain 11 rounds that would fall into this definition. So, that's the definition of what is a large capacity ammunition feeding device. If you jump back to page one, you'll see the penalty of grandfather clause and then some carve outs. So, the penalty is on lines nine and 10 and it says that a person who violates a section shall be in prison for not more than one year or fined not more than $500 or above. So, that's a penalty. The next section in C is the grandfather clause and it says that this section shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the effective date of this action. So, if you have it before let's say July 1st, 2018, the law does not apply to you. Okay. Wayne, did you have a question on that? Yeah, actually it's on page two, on page one in 1819.  What does a 22 caliber rimfire and attached tubular, is that like a magazine if you stick in? I mean, I know the 22 rifle. Sure. And actually, I mean, sorry that you answered, but also we do have Mr. Parrot calling in, for Parrot's gun shot, so. Yeah, I think he might be coming in. Oh, great. So anyway, so we will certainly have an expert that can help us a little. So attached tubular, I don't think I can access that. 22 rimfire is just a type of ammunition that is like center fire and center fire. I don't know. I'm sorry. Look later when we're done. I don't know where I can find what that is. So, going to the carve outs which are on page one, in subsection D. It says this, and there should be the title, there should be the word, this section, shell, the word shell should be inserted. Shell not applied to the following, what I call carve outs. On line 15, a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured for or transferred to the possession of a U.S. Department of Agency, or any state or department agency or political subdivision. Two, transfer were possessed by state or federal law enforcement officer for legitimate law enforcement purposes, regardless of whether that individual officer is on duty or not. Going to the top of page two, another carve out. Three, transfer to a licensee under a cross reference to the Atomic Energy Act for the purposes of establishing and maintaining security on-site physical protection system or security organization part by federal law. Number four, possessed by an individual who's retired from service with a law enforcement agency after the large capacity ammunition feeding device was transferred to the individual by the agency upon his or her retirement, provided that the individual is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition. Number five, if the device was manufactured, transferred or possessed by a licensed manufacturer or importer for the purpose of testing or experimentation authorized by the U.S. Attorney General. So, you have the ban, the penalty, the grandfather clause, and then those callbacks. I'm just curious, the language of line 17 of page one. We're in page one, section D1, where did that come from? Just because I've never seen political subdivision of a state and I'm wondering what an example of that might be, so just curious. So, political subdivision of a state is a municipality, something like that, it's a government entity within the state of Vermont, for example. So, you have federal, you have state, and then political subdivision state could be city of Brooklyn, et cetera. And so, this would be the large capacity ammunition feeding devices that are possessed by that governmental entity. Many of those might be law enforcement. It's not restricted to that, but that's, I think, the type of thing it's meant to get to. I now can proceed to the second new section, which is section nine, this is on page three. So, we talked about the large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Section nine would ban semi-automatic assault weapons. And it has a similar structure to the section we just went through. It has a new section under title 13, 4022. If you look in lines four and five and eight, it states that a person shall not manufacture, possess, or transfer a semi-automatic assault weapon. And I'll talk about the definitions in a moment. So, this is a prohibition on possession, manufacturer, or transfer. Number two is the penalty. Imprisonment of not more than one year, or fine, not more than $1,000, or both. Then if you look at B, there's a grandfather clause. This section shall not apply to the possession or transfer of a semi-automatic assault weapon, otherwise lawfully possessed on the effective date of this section. And then we get to the definitions. Any questions before I jump to the definitions? Definition begins on line 11, C. And what this does is it breaks down the definition into four types of weapons. So, C1 states as used in this section, semi-automatic assault weapon means line 12 is that first type. A semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has at least one of the following characteristics. And then it lists characteristics such as a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, and some other characteristics. So, a semi-automatic rifle that can take a detachable magazine and has one of these enumerated characteristics fits the definition. If you go to page four, you'll see B, the second type of weapon, a semi-automatic shotgun that has at least one of the following characteristics. A tail-spoping stock, a second hand-grip, a fixed magazine capacity, et cetera. So, once again, it's a type of weapon, semi-automatic shotgun with a list of characteristics. If it has at least one of those, it fits the definition. On line 13 on page four, under C, the third category weapon, a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics. And once again, it lists those characteristics. So, you have to be able to accept the magazine and have one of these enumerated characteristics. On page five, line 10 in the middle of the page is a fourth category under D, a revolving cylinder shotgun. So, we've had the definition of what constitutes a semi-automatic assault weapon. The next section of this, the next part of this section are the carbide, before it gets to the carbide. Any questions about the definitions? What is the source of the definition? What is the source of which compound? Was it from another state or from past federal? I'm sorry, I can't, I don't know that. It is from another state. I can't remember if it's Connecticut or New York. Because I looked at both of those because both of those have been held by the cycle circuits. Yeah, I just can't remember which of those two states it is. So, the carbide's on page five, starting line 11. So, a semi-automatic assault weapon shall not include, under A, a rifle, shotgun or fistful bat, and it has certain characteristics. For example, it is manually operated by a bolt, has been rendered inoperable, or as an antique. So, these are carbides. Another carbide is on 16 and 17 under B. A semi-automatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition. Under C, a semi-automatic shotgun, and then we talked about that earlier, that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine. And D, any rifle, firearm or shotgun that was manufactured at least 50 years prior to the effective date of this section. For those of the carbides, that this section would not apply to. Harry. I'm just, Luke, I'm not sure I picked up on that. When you're talking about, I just wanna make sure I'm gonna do the, a semi-automatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds. Now, let's say an M1 carbine, or a 223, and I know I'm probably rattling off stuff that there are guns out there that will accept a 10-round magazine, but they also will accept, and we're not talking about assault-style weapons. Are those guns, just because they can accept a larger round or have the capacity or capabilities of accepting a larger magazine, are those also gonna be found illegal to possess? I would ask this question of Eric also. Okay. Get his input on it. But I would almost, I think I understand what you're asking, but I would sort of flip it. Mark, you're the author of this, or you're the proposer of this, go ahead. I was gonna try to answer it in there. But it says a rifle that cannot accept, so it's not that you have different options, but cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds. So if whatever type of weapon specifically it is, that's an extension, correct, that's a carve out, so we'll not apply. Okay, thank you, and that's why I wasn't sure that... It's correct. Okay. No, and I mean, I will just, I will generally say that I wanna hear from witnesses on this and if there's something that should be modified on this, it's not set in stone whatsoever. So if there's a concern like that, this goes too broad for a particular gun that we shouldn't be trying to reach, then we should modify this. But I think this is a good start, and I think your concern is addressed with respect to the car bolts. I mean, I'd have to look at it again to see if we should look and say, well, what about these particular weapons that they fit into here? That would be a good exercise. Then, that's what I should I proceed? Okay. Well, the next, put the page six, please, the next new section is section 10, and so now we're moving into a slightly different area, which is safe storage. So section 10 would add a new section, title 13, 13 BSA 4023, that states on lines four, five, and six, that a person shall not store or otherwise leave a firearm outside his or her immediate possession or control without having first securely locked the firearm in a safe storage depository or by use of a tamper-resistant mechanical lock, gun lock, that may be an extra word in there, or other device appropriate to that weapon rendered incapable of being fired. So in other words, a person shall not possess or store a firearm unless it's in immediate possession or control, and I think you're familiar with that concept, or if it's outside immediate possession or control, it's securely locked or stored in some manner. So everyone clear of the general principle? Lines nine and 10 is the penalty section. Starting line 11 are the definitions of firearm and safe storage depository. So firearm cross-fractance is a definition of 13DSA 4017D, and if you remember, that is a general definition. It states that a firearm is any weapon which is designed to or which can expel a projectile by action of an explosive. So it's a general definition. Safe storage depository is defined on lines 14 through 17, and it states that a safe storage depository shall mean a safe or other secure container that when locked is incapable of being opened without a key combination or other unlocked mechanism. Any questions about section 10? The next section would be a section 11, which adds a new section to title 13, 13DSA 4024, and this concerns waiting periods. And the key language is on lines three and four and five and it basically states that a person shall not transfer a firearm to another person until 10 days after the completion of the background check. So you go, for example, the FFL, the background check, then there's a 10 day waiting period before you can accept or get a firearm. Any questions about that? And the last section would be section 12, and this is a mandate existing language. So most of this I won't go through. It's existing statute. It concerns the possession of a deadly or dangerous weapon in a school bus, school building, or in school property. And the amendment or the change would be on page eight. And you'll see on lines seven and eight. So this is the card out. And it says that on line four, this section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer. Line six, while engaged in law enforcement duties, and then the new language is on line seven and eight, or a law enforcement officer in possession of concealed firearm in a courtes, and there's a cross-site to federal statute. Basically what this would do is allow an off-duty law enforcement officer to carry a firearm on school grounds. May I ask a question? Okay, go ahead. I'm familiar with this section because that was the limit that I put on our last gun bill, but I see that this is still the own language because I was just gonna have an action on that for a while. Ken, are we able to, because we've already passed it out before, can we also amend this section to be the same as what was in, whatever that bill number was, because this is still the old law and law, six and five? Yes, yes you could do it, yes. Okay, that's what- We would play with the effective days, I think that's what we would have to- Yes. Okay, yeah. So that could get triggered by multiple bills that are moving, but we can certainly modify the language to be the same. Oh, great, thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thanks so much. Thanks for remembering the stories, but not the details. Do we think that the same conundrum was dangerous and deadly weapon as we did in the original 422, that means it could be anything at all, like a baseball bat or a golf club or- Right, so- At which place? Well, the definition- I'm 19. Page eight, number one, 18. I mean, we went through this with 422, we had to just, it just was too broad. Right, and then 221 had a definition. I don't think it was exactly the same line where- It was dangerous. I mean, you can have all kinds of deadly weapons in the school. Right, but are you talking about- Dangerous and deadly. The one about not possessing on the school property. Yeah. So, I mean, the fact that the intent of the injure is in there, I think, so it's existing in law that it's a deadly weapon. I don't know if it's defined elsewhere, but I think- What is it? It's underrated. It's underrated. Yeah, it's underrated. You have a, you bring something that can be considered a deadly weapon on the school property with the intent of injuring someone. They may have wanted to leave that trail abroad. And it is pretty broad because this is a definition for weapons in court in 4,016. And what it says is, dangerous or deadly weapon means any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether eminent, I'm sorry, animate or inanimate, which in a manner it is used, or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. That's the definition. So it is rather broad. From the baseball team, we have lots of guns and weapons. Right. It's intended to be used. What is that? It is the intent of the school property. It's intended to be used. Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Okay, thank you. Glad we got to bring it back. Okay, so we're starting to go around the room and see us here and welcome everybody. I'm sorry, I was late, but hi. I'm not sure. Will Smith, Office for the National Street Sports Foundation. Great, let's see it. I'm going to pull over for a T.J. Donovan. Okay. Gorya Mindell. And Becquia Bell. Stephanie Winters with the Medical Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Yeah. I was online. Great. So, Dr. Bell, are you back tonight? Thank you, everybody, for coming in this weather. Yeah. It's a car's off the road this morning. Thank you for having me here today. I am Dr. Becquia Bell. I'm a pediatric critical care physician at the Children's Hospital at EVM. I work in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, so the PICU, and we're the only PICU in the state of Vermont. In addition to my critical care training, I have a degree in public health, and I also have a special interest in injury prevention. So I'm here on behalf of myself, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics Vermont Chapter and the Vermont Medical Society in support of this bill. And I'll just start by saying there's a lot of different amendments where we actually are in support of all of the amendments as are included right now. And I do believe that each amendment can be impactful in reducing gun violence in the state. So as a pediatric critical care doctor, I take care of infants, children, and adolescents who are seriously ill or injured, and not that they need intensive treatment. And so by definition, I take care of children and adolescents who have been injured or killed by firearms. As you know, firearm injury is a public health crisis, and like any public health crisis, there's not one single intervention that we can do to solve it, right? And so with any public health issue, there are multi-faceted approaches that we need to take to help reduce the risk and improve outcomes. So this bill in the amendments included, I think, do that. So we can reduce the risk of those individuals who are at risk of hurting themselves or others, having access to lethal means, and we can improve outcomes by prohibiting the sale of certain types of weapons and ammunition that are known to produce really, really, particularly devastating injury. Children and adolescents who have their lives ahead of them really have the most to lose to gun violence. As pediatricians, we focus a lot on prevention, both prevention of illness, prevention of injury, and as part of that, we talk about prevention of firearm injury. So we talk about things like safe storage, which is included in this bill, and we talk about limiting access to those who might be impulsive, and that can be related to raising the minimum aid, which is also included in this bill. So I'll start a little bit with unintentional shootings. So unintentional shootings of children are oftentimes also by children, and so in those cases, we have the victim, who is a child, whose life is changed, and then also the shooter, who's oftentimes also a child or adolescent, whose life is changed. We have really, really strong evidence that safe storage can change, can really drastically reduce unintentional shootings. In addition, safe storage can really reduce suicide attempts by children and adolescents. So in a study where they looked, the researchers looked at all homes with guns, they took out cases where children and adolescents were shot either via suicide or by an unintentional shooting and compared that group to a group of people who lived in homes with guns, and then they compared how they stored the guns. Locking up the gun was significantly impactful in protecting people from these shootings. So there's actually four things that this study particularly looked at. They looked at locking up the gun, storing it unloaded, storing the ammunition separate from the gun and locking the ammunition. All four of those things independently was protective, and together they had a cumulative effect. The other really interesting part of this study is that again, when they compared these two groups, they found that the group where shootings of children and adolescents had occurred were significantly more likely, actually four and a half times more likely to identify the owner of a gun as an adolescent, so somebody under 20. So there you have the impact of, again, someone under 21 owning the gun and part of that has to do with ensuring things like safe storage is much harder to do if the adolescent actually purchased the gun, and the parent might also not even be aware of the firearm. So the study that you're referencing, is that something you're able to send us? Yeah, yeah, I have the reference here and I can just send you the full, the second of my test result with the link, but I can also just send you the full then. Yeah, sure. So I also take care of children in particularly adolescents who have been victims of assault or who have attempted suicide, and in both of those cases, when a gun is involved, it really changes how much I can help them. So in cases of assault, I've seen cases where teenagers are at a party, they get an argument, what would have probably ended with some broken bones, other injuries that I could really deal with, a gun is involved and that ends in a fatality. When you talk about things like suicide attempts, this is something that I actually see quite a bit. So I do get a lot of adolescents in Vermont who have attempted suicide in a serious enough way that they end up in the ICU. When I get that call about one of these patients, the first thing I need to hear is what did they do? What did they use? Most people who have used a firearm do not even make it to the intensive care unit. The most common method of suicide attempt that I take care of that come to the ICU are intentional injections or poisonings. In the ICU, I can put in breathing tubes, I can breathe for patients, I can help patients heart speed, I can stop it with me as I can put people on dialysis. But gunshot wounds are a totally different story. I've had one patient in my entire career so far who survived a self-inflicted gunshot wound. They're 95% fatal in those cases. And in fact, when you look at methods of completed suicide using firearms is the most common method to complete suicide than when you combine all of the other methods together. So these are really, really fatal acts, fatal methods. And I think some people sort of think, well, the method that people choose is indicative of their intent, and that is actually not the case. So researchers have found that when they've talked to survivors of near lethal suicide attempts that those who use more violent means like firearms are actually acting more impulsively than those who use other methods like ingestions. So they tend to think about the act in a shorter amount of time. When they ask people who survived, tell us the time that elapsed from the moment you decided you were going to attempt suicide and when you did make that attempt. A quarter of survivors said it was five minutes and then another half said less than an hour. So these are young people. These are really impulsive acts. Those who use firearms are less likely to have really planned out the act or to leave suicide notes. So the idea that if someone wants to attempt suicide or they're gonna do it by some method is not at all borne out by the literature. We find that people who attempt suicide, 90% of them do not go on to die by suicide. And when I take care of my patients who have used means other than firearms when they become, when they get better, when they become aware of what happened, I see a mixture of regret and remote, a lot of relief there. And not to say that people don't struggle or people don't then go on to complete suicide. So because of all this, I think it's really important to form us a way that we can restrict lethal access to people who are at risk for hurting themselves or others. I think we all are aware that today is marks of one month from the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School where an 18-year-old, a 19-year-old killed 17 students and faculty, injured 17 others with firearms that he purchased. In addition, shortly after that, we had this near-missing Vermont at Fairhaven Union where a former student and 18-year-old was also found to have incredibly made threats and also had firearms that he had purchased. And in this discussion about impulsivity and access to lethal weapons, I think it's important to highlight a piece of that after David in that conversation, which I think we've probably all read, but the conversation between the defendant, Jack Sawyer and the young woman who made the report to the authorities because I think this really highlights this idea that access to firearms can really lead to a tragedy. So in this conversation, she says, she's known as juvenile AM in the affidavit. She says, don't you need a license to shoot, Sawyer, not to target practice, to hunt, yeah, a hunting license. Juvenile AM. Oh, maybe for now you should get rid of the shotgun if people are suspicious, just so you're extra in the clear. Sawyer, no, not at all. This is Vermont, like literally everybody has a gun and it's perfectly legal and everything. I just won't tell anybody and I'll lay low about everything even though I don't plan on doing anything bad. I just don't draw attention to myself. Juvenile AM. Yeah, but what if you get impulsive and want to do something bad? If the gun's handy, you're more subject to make a bad decision. So this teenager really understands and has a lot of insight into the combination of impulsivity and access to lethal arms and she is trying to mitigate risk here and trying to reduce the risk of a tragedy. In addition to her, we've seen a lot of really incredible courage and maturity from teenagers here in Vermont, from teenagers across the country on this issue of gun safety and when we listen to them, they say they're scared, they're worried, they're angry, they're speaking out, they're recording these incidents, they're trying to reduce risk here but I think they really shouldn't shoulder this burden alone and we can really help them by doing things that we know can reduce gun violence. Again, there are many different pieces to this bill and many different amendments. I think individually they all can be impactful in reducing gun death and gun injury here in Vermont. So for all these reasons, the Vermont chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics which represents 200 Vermont pediatricians and the Vermont Medical Society which represents over 2,000 Vermont physicians support this bill. Thank you Dr. I want to hear you about the song you're in so I think you should be brought it up and reading it from the affidavit because in the piece that you spoke of though at least the defendant was specific that I mean to do no harm and so there's still, you know, I'm also a defense attorney so I think this is also a very hard case approved because there was no furthering action of any threat. I mean, and if you look even deeper at the defense journal and all the things that you found about there's a lot of stuff. But again, I mean, this is really a mental health concern. And so I'm curious though, and I was going to say also as a pediatrician how do we balance that concept though?  And so I mean, how do we properly or better address those concerns? So that way we don't get to the point that then now we're now trying to figure out a way that these kids that fall into the cracks on his feet don't have access to anything that could print themselves or others. Yeah, and I think that your point is really borne out when you read this whole affidavit of this part where he sometimes does talk about, yeah, he talks about the future and then other times he talks about shooting. So again, I think that's even more important that we limit access because this is, again, not somebody, the idea that if someone wants to hurt people in a school, they're gonna do it no matter what. I mean, the methods really matter and what they have access to really matters. And so for somebody like this, and again, just some of the statistics that I mentioned, you know, sometimes a decision is a second decision. The kid gets a bad grade on a test and they use a firearm on themselves. So we don't always know the safest, you know, the American Academy of Pediatrics is really clear that what's safest for kids in terms of reducing firearm injury and death is a home really without any guns. But certainly those things that I mentioned, the safe storage piece that's when it's truly inaccessible can really make a difference. And so a young person who's at risk for all these things, if they can purchase their own firearm and people in the house might not know, if they can't be stored properly in a way that's inaccessible, these are all huge risk factors. I get that, sorry, I'm helping you answer my question, but again, and I'm looking at all of these situations. You know, I mean, there's obviously the evidence of mental health concerns with the young man down in the fairing, but also if you look at the Florida case, this was also a kid that was in foster care at a very young age, you know, had both parents die one at L.S. and say the other one more recently, you know, also had, was autistic and had autism from, diagnosed from 10 up. The thing is, oftentimes though in these, and I would think that he was a pediatrician, also an advocate for youth, you know, troubled youth, where are we telling these kids though? I mean, because again, I think we can all agree, I mean, kids don't just become killers.  And so how can we better provide for our youth so that they don't get desperate and enacting the ways that are horrific? I mean, that's a huge question and something that as pediatricians, we really work towards when we talk about things and that's not related to this bill, but things like ACEs, access to, you know, healthcare access to mental health, you know, more funding towards these types of things. All of that stuff is really, really important. But again, when I take care of all of these patients, these are all my patients, they all, I think, take care of lots of patients with mental health issues. Again, if there's a gun that's accessible, that totally changes what I can do for them as an intensivist. And there's lots of behavior that's concerning and lots of behavior that kids can do to put themselves at risk, but the gun being there really changes things. And I think that's the piece that we're sort of focused on in this bill. I certainly agree that there's tons of stuff that we can do for kids to help them. I think that kids all over the world are facing some of these same issues, you know, poverty and mental health issues. We have a particular issue here in this country with access to firearms. And that's part of, I think, what we're focused on really right now. And thank you, this is helpful to have you here. Are there, in your experience, or maybe statistically, are there, do you know what the most common type of firearm that produces the injuries that you see in the ICU for kids are, and I mean, maybe it's just the difference between handguns or rifles or what some people call assault rifles or, but are there particular calibers, those things that are most produced? Yeah, I see that. Free kids' use of ICU most often. So, you know, I see both handgun injuries and shotgun injuries. A lot of it is really just about what's available. I personally haven't taken care of patients who are victims of assault-style weapons. So, really, any type of firearm, any type of firearm can be deadly, you know? And then, so when you look at sort of one patient or one victim, any caliber can kill somebody. And then if you're thinking about the potential for multiple victims, I mean, that obviously really stresses any health system. So, if you're talking about weapons or ammunition that would potentially create more victims, I mean, that's going to be really difficult to take care of as well. But there isn't really, I mean, I've seen injuries from all types of guns. And the other question is, I actually don't know whether there are states that have passed some sort of a safe storage law, and I'm wondering if you know and if there are studies that compare sort of states, state-by-state, states that have those kinds of laws and those that don't, and that comparable suicide or gun death from any attack or whatever. Yes. So, typically their virtue is child action, child accessibility prevention, cap laws, right, I was saying that, right? And yes, states that have those laws tend to have fewer unintentional and intentional shootings. And I can try to find that data for you and send it to the committee. Something that sounds like really helpful. But yeah, this is something, I mean, we all know that there's variable data when we're looking at some of these measures and part of it, it probably states have all different types of laws guns across state lines. It's really difficult to really assess the impact. But actually, the safe storage piece has really, actually does have really good data. Martin, are you there? Yeah, this may be out of your belly with what I'll pass you in later. So, on the sale of firearms to minors, we're going to, we have a couple of exemptions or exceptions for that. One for law enforcement, one for members of Vermont, National Guard, we are considering, or I think we may consider an exemption for a youth in the 18, 21 year age bracket who's taken a firearm safety course. And that would be another person who can, in fact, as somebody younger than 21. Do you have any familiarity with those kind of safety courses, any comment on that? Yeah, so what we have data on is actually not quite that, not quite a hunting safety course, but data on safety courses for younger children, somewhere school, like basically up to 18. And those, unfortunately, those courses have not shown any effect on reducing, for instance, a child going and picking up a gun and pulling the trigger. But that's not quite the population that you're talking about. So I think, again, when you're breaking up some of the stuff, I don't know the date on it, but plausibly it could help with an unintentional shooting. But intentional shootings, which would be, for instance, a suicide attempt, any type of course wouldn't have any effect on an intentional shooting, either shooting someone else in an assault or shooting yourself. So let me, you said that you've seen all kinds of different weapons that have been used. But for the suicide attempts and the successful ones, do you have a concept of how often a handgun is used versus a long rifle or a long gun thing? I don't. Since this is brought up, I will look into this and let you know. Again, I think that what's available is what's available. I've seen both. So I don't know the larger national data on that, but I can look into that. Because already, as you probably know, that individuals who are younger than 21 can't purchase a handgun, and what we're talking about in this part is the long guns. And I think it depends also on the part of that country. I think there are, depending on whether people use handgun more than long guns, but there will be a suit. Doctor, you practice at the UVM methods, correct? Have you ever, have you practiced in other states besides Vermont? Yes. Can you kind of give me a comparison or what other states have you practiced in? Massachusetts.  Do you think that there's more gun violence in Massachusetts than there were in Vermont when we're dealing with adolescents? I can't speak to just looking at what I've seen, because the numbers are small. I do know that in Vermont, suicide by firearm occurs at a much higher rate per population than in surrounding states like Massachusetts. That number I can say for sure. I can't tell you about it. And when I practice in Massachusetts, I practice in Boston. We got patrons from New Hampshire. I don't think I could really give you a really good number on that on my personal experience, but I do know that in Vermont, there's a much higher rate of suicide by firearm. OK, thank you. Thank you, thank you very much. And again, any written testimony or anything else? Yes, I'll send you that. And then, OK, get it. Here you go. Thank you. So my understanding is Japan is coming in? Yeah, he's supposed to come in here. I think he just texted me as an envelope. OK, all right. Why don't we take just a quick stretch break and then we'll move your hand. We do have 22 inches for that. Yeah, right. OK, so before we continue with our witnesses, I just wanted to make a few comments because I was late when we started. In terms of Martin's amendments, those are just something to get a conversation out there. I anticipate that they would have come to us some way or another. So when Martin suggested them, I thought let's just get them out there, let people hear the concepts, and have the conversation from there. So OK, so let's turn to Mr. Barrow. Thank you, so please, Parrow, I'm sorry. So please join us in the witness chair. We do record everything. And yesterday, we were talking about FFLs and background checks, and we had a lot of questions about how it really works in the field. I live in Moreton, so I know of your excellent reputation. So I and others had thought about inviting you in, but you're actually available to come here and personally appreciate that. So I don't know if you've had a chance to see S55 that is a little working on, but then we also just have some good questions about background checks. I don't have any prepared, or whatever. I really have nothing prepared, and I was just handed the update in just a few minutes ago. OK, OK, so there is a spirit section. But then also, if you're curious about, maybe you can walk us through a background check. People are interested in, you know, that there's a form, there's what type of information do you keep? Do you send to the federal government?  Would you take them on the phone, or so paper trails? I can walk you through a typical state. We just have to ask you to introduce yourself to the writer. OK, my name is Henry Perrow. I own Perrow's gun shop and police supplies in Waterbury, Vermont. I've been a federally licensed gun dealer for 35 years. I've been a full-time police officer for 37 years also, worked in the city of South Burlington and Waterbury up until just a few months ago. So I can see from the gun dealer side, I can see from the law enforcement side. So a typical firearm sale will start off by the person entering the store choosing the firearm. Depending on the firearm, there's different requirements. The federal requirement right now for a long gun is 18 years old. For a handgun, it's 21 years old. That's a federal law. The person has to positively identify themself. And the easiest way is with a valid Vermont photo driver's license that has their physical address. They can't live in a PO box. If it says PO box, more town Vermont, they have to provide additional documentation, possibly something from the Department of Motor Vehicles. It has to be a state or government issued document that has their physical address on it. So from that point, we take their license, we identify the person by the picture, and we start the federal background check. Right now, we are all computerized. We have laptops. The 4473 is the federal form number that everyone purchasing the firearm has to fill out. We have it on a laptop, just for convenience. It's electronic storage. So what they will do is they will fill out all the information, last name, first name, middle name, physical address, date of birth, physical characteristics, and then answer a series of questions. Are you a fugitive from justice? Are you addicted to a lawful user of narcotics or marijuana? There's a series of questions, checks and balances, and then from there, we go into the next portion of completing the form, and then we transmit it over electronically to the computer that we do the federal background check on. And basically, what we do is repopulate all that information into the federal system, name, date of birth, all the characteristics, and then we transmit it to the FBI. The FBI goes through a series of checks and balances. They have a series of computers. I went to a class on it to understand how it worked. It's pretty interesting. The first computer is absolutely no, this person is denied. If it hits that first computer, it takes it right back, almost instantly, saying denied. If not, it goes into a second series of computers, does some checks and balances in the third series. One second, does it tell you why it's denied? No, that's a privacy issue. And actually, if somebody says no, they're not convicted, or what was the other one? You said they're convicted? Adjudicated, mentally defective, a lawful user. Okay, it's a lawful user, so is all that verified or is there some statement that there's a penalty for? Yes, it's under penalties of perjury. I guess I may have skipped, got ahead of myself. What we do is we print the form once they're completed. We have them review the answers, and then they have to sign it and date it. And there's a paragraph under penalties of perjury that all these are true and correct. So once a person, a good example is with the marijuana bill, that's against the law under federal definition. And it says right on it, are you a lawful user of marijuana? Somebody could have a medical marijuana card and put no, but I believe the state systems, the computers talk, that could be a reason for a denial. And it's also a reason for possible prosecution on the ATF's card because they lied on that form. So once it's printed out, they sign it, they date it, they certify that the answers are true and correct. And then we go to the federal background system where we basically populate all the information that they have supplied, and then that's when they transmit it to the federal government. The federal government will say yes, no, or maybe delay. A yes means they have a clean slate, a no means they found something, but it also means they lied on the form and we have to hold that as evidence. That maybe means maybe the person's name was John Smith and last I knew there was 60 John Smiths in Vermont, meaning putters nationwide. So maybe there's a John Smith in California that's wanted or should be denied, but they're not quite sure. So what they do is they put it on a holding pattern for three business days. And that gives the FBI or the ATF time to do a complete background check on them to pull the actual files. Maybe from VCIC here in Vermont, they could pull some additional information. So they have three business days to do a more thorough background check on a maybe or yes. Roughly, what's the breakdown in your experience running your store between the yes, the no's and the maybe's? I would probably say 90% yes, 8% maybe, and 2% no. And I think one of the biggest reasons we see such a low denial rate is because it's a known fact that criminals don't go to a gun shop knowing they have to identify themselves. When they sign the form, they leave set up in such a way they leave palm prints, which is even a better identification for the federal government. So we see very few no's. And a lot of the no's are maybe his brother stole his ID, went to Canada and drinking and got intoxicated and caused some trouble. And there is a process where the person who receives the denied, he can request why. Yes, identify yourself and he can find out why. And then it says because of 1995 you've gotten a fight with Canada and injured someone. He may have to prove in 1995 he was stationed in Germany in the US military. So there's a process to restore his rights or their rights. So once we do the background check they will come back and ask no where denied and then from there we can actually sell and transfer the firearm. Yeah, so all of this is on computer happens almost instantaneously. I mean, it happens within about two minutes. Yes. Okay, and so the three day waiting period then buys only to the maybes, is that correct? Yes. So the one come back, yes. You can sell the gun and move on. Yes. So, I've heard since we've started talking about this I've gotten mixed messages about where information is stored, what store, how long is it kept. So can you tell us what information you keep, what information the federal government, you know, NICS keeps if any. Well, I can hear, I can speak to my business and federal law. Federal law mandates that I keep my records. So the first gun I sold in 1983 I can tell you who bought it and the serial number. I have cases upon cases of federal forms and federal bound books that everything is a check and balance it when we receive the firearm we have positive identification of who we received it from. On the disposition side who it went to there's a transaction serial number where it may say 45-83 meaning it was the 45th gun I sold in 1983. I can go downstairs, pull the 1983 and pull 45-83 and it has all the information. So I keep those until I go out of business. Once I go out of business they have to be sent to the ATF and there's a special address and they're stored somewhere and I'm not familiar with that process but the records are still available. So eventually, so until you send them, go out of business and send them to the ATF is there one of the questions we had the other day was whether there was a central storage of that information about? No, there's no central storage in the sense that all the gun dealers in Vermont would have one place. Yeah, one of that, I think. Each individual dealer is responsible for his own storage and the safekeeping of these records. Under Vermont law, under federal law they can come in pretty much anytime. Under Vermont law, any law enforcement officer upon demand can look at my records if they need it to trace a firearm. So they have to be kept on the premise. So clarify questions. So they're kept on the premise in paper form but if I was following what you were saying they've already been, the information that's on the form is that being uploaded to the federal database as well like this entire form or is it just sort of the results? Like in other words, I think that's what we started getting at the, is what's kept in the store different. How does it differ? How does it differ from what's kept in the federal database? In the federal database, what happens is when I transmit your name, date of birth, all your information, that is stored through the federal government and I'm not quite sure of the process. It's giving, once the background check comes back we will receive a transaction almost like a credit card approval code that we put on that form. So we can go back and pull a form. It will have this transaction number. The ATF can pull that transaction number and do a check and balance across the board. So how they store, I couldn't testify to. I don't really know.  And I've seen media reports and I don't know if they're accurate or not about there being discrepancies between these paper forms that are kept in the possession of business, FLLs and then the errors that are in the federal rate and apparently a couple of years ago there was an uploading of five or 600 new entries from Vermont. So I guess what I'm trying to get at particularly when it gets to mental health issues and perhaps more sensitive information is how reliable is that and is it more reliable in the paper form in the business or in the federal form or am I making a false distinction? Well, it's a replication. So there's the paper form which will be signed. That is evidence in a crime that you lied on this form so that will be held differently but the electronic version is I believe for their records for quick easy access. They could call me up and any day say, Henry did you sell a gun to this person and I can go into my database I go, yes, pull the form, we're on our way. And it does happen occasionally. So the ATF will show up and they will take the form and put it in plastic, mark it as evidence because it has that person's fingerprints on it which is a very good positive identification even if he said, well somebody stole my ID and bought it with a firearm. Why are your fingerprints and palm prints all over the form? So that's stored at my location. On the federal side, it's electronic. It has the transaction number that they can relate back to the specific form and it will have the information that I provide. On the mental health, that's that is whatever the state of Vermont provides. And I know there was an issue a few years ago about Vermont not wanting to provide the mental health status. So it's whatever the state of Vermont provides is what is in the federal database. And have you seen a change? Like this article I'm thinking of referenced a couple of years ago, I suppose an upgrade. In your 35 years, have you seen an improvement in terms of, or I'll just be curious what the state of with the computer systems, the way they are, the power, absolutely. And like I had expressed before, I went to a seminar from the guy who was in charge of the national computer system out of West Virginia. And it was good for me to understand when you had entered what happens. So yes. So I know who you've been, Gary. I think my question got kind of answered and addressed in the course of it. Gary. I kind of think that my question probably got the answer but I just want to clarify it. When it comes to the FBI records, I'm assuming that a part of their record database will be the outcome of the checks to their NCIC checks and everything else. Am I correct in that subject? So it will have the purchaser's name data for all his information. And it will have the status. Did the FBI approve it or deny it? And then a transaction number. Thank you. Yep. So you've been doing this for 35 years. Did you see any change when the Brady Bill got passed or how did that change your situation, your habits? When the Brady Bill was passed, it did change the way we had to do business. Back then, nothing was computerized. So we had to send our forms to, I believe, Kevin McLaughlin of Chittin County. I think he was the point of contact back then. And then he would do the background because law enforcement had access to the computers that we now have. So that would only change without the stamp except you had to send it to somebody. We had to send it when we had their transfer. And I can't remember if we faxed them or, I think we faxed them, but we... You still had to keep all your records from when they were found? Absolutely. So they could trace it back over there? Yes. I'm curious, have you completed your testimony as far as how the record checks work and stuff like that? Because if you have, I've got three or four different questions for you. I, unless someone has the information, I've got to testify. Everything I've been asked. I'm not sure if I can volunteer or useful information, but in this bill that we're taking up, that's 55, there's the expanded background checks on basically point-to-point sales, me selling to Jants and whatever. Will those have a background checks in your opinion? Are they beneficial? I don't believe they're gonna be beneficial because I don't see any way to track what's going on.  There's no checks in balance. And the thing, I did an interview with WCAX last week and I said, show me statistics where this is a problem. And even the WCAX reporter agreed. There's no statistics. There's nothing to say this is gonna change anything. If, and again, in this law talks about, again, I'm gonna use the term point-to-point, a person-to-person sales. They have to go to an FFL and do the paperwork. Now, will you or any FFLs that you're aware of participate in that program? I would like to see the bill, if it gets passed and signed before I comment on that. There's a lot of variables. My liability insurance, as you can imagine, is horrendous as it is. A lot of it is based on exposure of the number of firearms that I transfer, obviously, because the higher the number, the more liability or exposure for something. So if it becomes such a burden that my insurance company drops me like they did a couple of years ago, just because that becomes an issue. So I'm not quite sure how to comment on that. If it becomes a burden that an FFL holder, all of a sudden receives a $10,000 a year increase in his liability insurance, I wouldn't do it. I'll not follow up on that. Go ahead. But I haven't got a couple other questions. I wanna stay on that just so I don't worry about it. So then, are you aware, though, then under just your agreement with the feds and being a dealer and doing those, can you, are you able to say yes or no? So again, can you say I will only do the background checks for guns that I sell, not these police? Absolutely. I can deny any person a transfer of a firearm for any reason. If I don't like your blue suit, I can say. Bring a black one next time. Yeah. Have you done that before? Yes, for cause. Yes. I did not even know the National Center would most likely approve it. Yes, I have. Okay. I wonder about the circumstances. When the hair stands up on the back of your neck, or the back of my neck, I take a step back. I'm a police officer in state. Police officer in state. But just a good businessman. You know, I don't want to sell a firearm to someone who I think may harm themselves or someone else. Somebody comes in, there's a lot of, I don't even want to say law enforcement clues, but somebody comes in, they don't know what they're doing. It just doesn't seem right. I think many times I have said, well, you're on the leg.   And I just, you know, sit back and kind of look at everything I talk to them. I try to get more information out. And sometimes they actually say, you know, yeah, you're right, I guess I don't need a firearm and they'll leave, so. But that's me. Okay, I've got a couple other quick questions. Sorry. Okay, but I have to agree with you. 32 years in law enforcement and a supervisor once upon a time said, if you're in law enforcement that long, you should have the uncanny ability to figure things out like that, if it doesn't pass a sniff test, you might want to back up a little bit. It's a little bit. But what's your opinion, and we have an amendment that was proposed to us today on a 10 day waiting period. I'll read it to you. Our person shall not transfer the firearms with no person until 10 days. After completion of the background check required under 18 USC 192 S, what's your opinion of that? My opinion is, I haven't read the entire bill over, but I would put money on it right now, that everything in here is skewed toward the law-abiding citizen. And there's probably nothing in here that's skewed toward the criminal. Once again, these are law-abiding people coming in exercising their second amendment right, criminals do not come in to gun shops and identify themselves. That's the bottom line. I don't know, 8F Traces, how many can show that a drug dealer out of Holyoke came in and bought a firearm, identified himself, brought the firearm back and traded it for heroin? I'd like to see how many statistics. I don't think there is any. It just doesn't make any sense. So once again, we are burdening law-abiding citizens, taxpayers, for something that I don't even see any statistics with law-abiding citizens are doing something within that 10-day window. So I don't see it's gonna have any effect. I'm done. Thank you. You just hand me that. That's the parallel. That's the parallel. Here's a copy of that. Yeah, make sure they are. So the waiting period, the concept of other places that have had a waiting period is not that this is gonna keep a criminal from obtaining the known criminal, somebody who's already a criminal. Of course, the concept is that it's a cooling off period. It is somebody being suicidal that doesn't buy the gun from you, so buys it from somebody else who doesn't have that hair stick up in their head, or it's somebody who purchases it and with some intent to use it to harm other, on more of an impulse. And it's really, it's to reduce the concept of impulsivity. I just wanna make it clear that I don't think this is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, it's to have a cooling off period. And I don't know if you wanna comment on that, but I just wanna make it clear. And I do understand that concept. I just, yeah, we're a hunting state. Has there been suicides? Absolutely. My personal belief is that if somebody has a mental health issue and their intent is to harm themselves, that is just one avenue and there's so many other avenues. The other question I had, just the scenario and I want to have you comment on it. So for the broader background check, so you have sold a gun to an individual, went through the background check, it was fine. Now this individual, if he wants to, or she wants to give it to their son, that's actually fine. You don't have to go through the background check. That's an exemption for this, it's a family matter. But if he wants to sell it to somebody else, puts it on Craigslist or whatever, and he gets a call from somebody. And the person decides, the gun owner decides, well, I'm not going to go through that hassle and this guy shows up and gets the gun. And that is subsequently used in a crime. So at that point, the ATF or law enforcement, presumably they could go, they have the gun, let's say, and they have a serial number and they decide they want to try to track it down to where the source goes.  Is that only if they have that information? What information? That I did the transfer. Right, but how, I mean, right. But they could potentially go to the various gun, I mean, it could be in the community, let's say, but they could find out who you sold. And my point is that from the records that you've kept, they can tell who they've sold the initial buyer of the gun from you. They have the serial number they know and they track it down to whatever efforts to. One of the issues is with the older guns, the old 30s, the stuff that's been in the family has been in circulation. Is the ATF could find a 3030 out of crime scene. They could call Winchester and say, where did this gun go? And they have all the paperwork. So they could know that it goes to your shop and then they go to your shop, find out what goes to this person. Then presumably, if it's within the time period, law enforcement could go to that person who bought the gun from you and say, hey, have you sold this gun to somebody else? And they could follow, you answer the question I had. But see, there's so many firearms that are not in the system right now that it's gonna be, there's no trace in that firearm, even unless they know exactly who sold it. So they go to every gun dealer in Vermont, they say, I didn't sell it. They can trace the gun back to a manufacturer or trace the gun back to a dealer that went out of business in 1975 and the records are destroyed and all the whatever. And then that guy, even if they find that guy who bought it brand new in 1975 from Woolworths, you know, say, ah, I gave it to my son. And it just, there's no tracking it on the older firearms. Sure, on the older firearms. Yeah, all right. So, the other, I just wanted you to, if you could, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the section regarding a ban on assault, semi-automatic assault weapons. I don't know if you had a chance to look at that. Well, I have it, but that's on page three. If you wanna do it answering Martin's question first or if you wanna do it beforehand, I would like to have a very small, short, gun 101, assault weapon, semi-automatic, on the axle. I can tell the difference in all those. And that kind of, the question, I have a couple of questions I have about this definition because it doesn't list gun actual models or anything like that. Some states actually have assault weapon vans and main models. This is naming characteristics. And the question I would have and certainly if you did that tutorial for all of us, that would be great. But specifically is, with this definition, would you understand what would qualify as an assault weapon and what would not qualify as an assault weapon? And if it's the latter, if you could give me more input on how one would properly define and review what an assault weapon is. Under federal definition, which is what we have to go by, being licensed, is an assault weapon came from a loosely translated German assault rifle which was a submachine gun. Only automatic that you use in war. Those have been heavily, heavily regulated since 1933, 34. People cannot possess them without a lot of retake. So to use a term assault rifles, it's loosely defined by whoever is writing the bill and what they would like to see in it. So there is no federal definition. And that's what we deal with every day. We have to define what type of firearm using a set of known characteristics within the federal definition. So a assault rifle is a tough one to define. It can be defined by whatever you want to say it is and then set up these parameters. So then you would know what a firearm would meet these parameters and which would. Yeah, I would by reading these definitions. So yeah, that was my main question. You may not agree with the definitions in here but that was my main question is to be able to understand what gun would be in this category and which wouldn't. So I turn it over to Lynn who wants to kind of go a little broader. Yeah, the question is is you hear people say assault weapon and then there's semi-automatic and there's automatic and my understanding is that the federal government banned something in 1994 and then it expired in 2004. And statistics on crime went up during that period. From 94 to 2000. 2004 and one of the largest tragedies. Okay, during the period of 94 to 2004. Yes, crime actually, violent crime went up during the ban. So can you explain what the differences between these things? I mean assault weapon is a semi-automatic is a. An assault rifle is a solely automatic and it's a semi-automatic. It's like atomic. Yes. What's the difference between that and the other two? The biggest difference is how they fire. A assault rifle, you hold the trigger, you hold the trigger down and it just continues to fire until you release the trigger. The trigger. That is a true assault. Automatic weapon. Automatic weapon, you see in the news in Iraq, you have to understand and absolutely. And then a semi-automatic. A semi-automatic is you pull the trigger, it fires, the bolt will come open, it will throw the empty shell out and then it will load a new one. You release the trigger and then pull it and it starts that cycle again. So all automatic, you just hold it and it just goes. Just goes. The semi-automatic, you have to pull and stop. Yes, you pull and pull each one. That's very related. So thank you for that description, it's helpful. So my son has a semi-automatic rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It doesn't have any of the things that are listed here. But it is semi-automatic and he brings it over from shooting things with it. Is there any difference in the firing capacity of between that rifle and what's being described here as a semi-automatic assault weapon? Do you know what I'm asking? It's a semi-automatic rifle. It does not have a tripod or a flash press or this. It's a semi-automatic firearm. End of story. A telescoping stock does nothing to it. Bayonet lug does nothing to it. Doesn't make it more dangerous. It doesn't do anything to the firing cycle. It doesn't change it. And I'm just reading here fairly quickly. One of the popular guns that we sell is a camouflaged youth turkey gun for youngsters who would like to get into turkey hunting. And depending on how far this goes, it does have a holding or telescoping stock for the use, it makes it adjustable. I'm assuming you're talking about a shotgun. Yes, a shotgun. And isn't there a section in here specifically? Maybe I haven't gone to that. I'm just gonna read you a little. Quickly as we speak. I appreciate you bringing it up. One of my questions was is I think, is there now a limit on the magazine size for a semi-automatic? I thought it was, you could only have three. For hunting, yes. So, but that's specifically for hunting. So if you kept it at home and then you said you wanted to keep it for some other reason, there's not a limit on the size of the magazine. No. So under your definition, would in AR-15 be considered an assault weapon? Under my definition? No. So I'm not sure if you've had a chance to look through any of the other proposals if you have any other comments about it. Who stayed there? I mean, I'm sorry to get you. We're not gonna ask them the question. I just wanna stay where we're at. Before you talk about it. Sure, sure. Because there was a question a little while ago about, also did we talk about the 10-day winning period? And even after you went to the background check for that queen off period. And what I thought might be helpful, because again, since you are a dealer and one of the larger dealers in Vermont, I'm just curious about personal practices. Like for me, again, just as a novice someone, I don't personally only use my arms, however, I would assume that let's say like before hunting season, you have enough people that go buy a gun.  Right up until the day before. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. So you really see people, if they need it for a certain activity or whatever, really buying two, three weeks out, or do they do it more before the event? A lot of times with the hunting industry, we bring in so much money for the state that a lot of it is, I wanna say impulse, maybe if mother, son comes in, next thing you know, dad, I'd really like this. I'd like to go deer hunting with you, and it's such a tradition. It could be the Thursday before the start of deer hunting. So we do see sales like that. We do run specialties that we come to firearms ammunition, and you know, you try to make money when you can. Thank you. Sir, a couple other questions. In the heart of the bill, the S-55 passed by the Senate, at the last page, there's a sale of firearms to minors, and there's been some discussion about adding an exemption, another exception. Right now there's a couple exceptions in subsection B. It's on the last page of not the amendment from the CDF. Here. There are two exceptions right now. We've been talking about adding an exception that if an individual would otherwise not be allowed to get a firearm under this provision, if they took a firearm, a state-certified firearm safety course, and they had successfully passed that. Are you familiar with the firearm safety courses? The hunter safety course? Yes. And how much, as far as safe handling of a firearm is involved in that course? I would say probably 90% of it is, it's all about being safe, not in your target. Are you able to kind of just basically explain that course for us? Is that something you're interested in? I'm not a certified instructor, but I've been around long enough where there's two portions. You have the handbook, which walks you through a lot of the safety aspects. It will walk you through the definitions, what type of firearm, simple things you never point, a firearm at anything unless you intend to shoot it. So it goes through the whole safety aspect. It's geared for the younger hunters. And then after that, they have a practical in which they have to load a firearm and take some shots and prove that they are going to be a safe hunter before they're issued their hunter safety card. So is it a requirement to get a hunting license even after you're 18 to have gone through that course? I know there are exceptions, because I got my hunting license in Michigan and I was able to get it here. So there is exceptions. If you're 19-year-old and you want to start hunting, you want to buy a gun. You would have to take the hunter safety card or provide a hunting license in another state to play with what you did. Right, okay. The other question I am going to take advantage of the fact that you're a retired law enforcement officer. I mean, this is something that Gary and I have talked about and he's interested in as well, but I don't want Gary to have to testify so I'm going to ask him. Gladly. So, if you can go to my other amendment, the representative amendment, and if you can go to page seven and eight. So, currently firearms are banned on school grounds, but there are exceptions. One is a law enforcement officer while engaged in law enforcement duties. This amendment adds a provision that essentially will an off-duty, currently employed law enforcement officer to also be an example that they can carry on school property. What I think Gary and I have talked about is whether that should be expanded to a retired law enforcement officer. And if you could tell me what kind of certification or ongoing training, I know Gary mentioned, maybe you should ask the question. I'm actually, I'm going to just expand a little bit. Under 18 USC 922G, we're a retired law enforcement officer. A law enforcement safety actor. Exactly. Exactly. In my, we talked about increased school security. And actually, I'm writing up to having them right up in the amendment right now to add those folks as being able to obtain employment in school systems as long as they're qualified. They get their regular certification and meet some minimal requirements. But so basically, what's your initial thought on adding that to a bill to enhance school safety? And I also just wanted to understand what that's annual certification process is and such if you could. You can then turn your eyes off. Okay, last time I wanted to give you an actual answer. Well, it's going to be up to the certifying agency. I just retired, there's certain requirements to retire. You have to have, I believe it's 12 years, I believe 12 years in good standings and good, you left under good circumstances. Well, in Waterbury, they dissolved the department. So I'm certified now to carry it nationwide because I'm covered under that bill. Before we retired out of Waterbury, we were given a, I call it an HR 218 identification card, which will have my name, my date of birth, and that a certification on it is that I have qualified and I am certified under this bill, that HR 218 bill to carry nationwide. So I would say absolutely that should be expanded. I just, I don't want to feel special, but if somebody can legally carry a firearm, I wouldn't have a problem with a law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm, a good guy with a firearm who will stop a bad guy any day. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's mainly somebody who has the extra thing is a law enforcement officer, either on duty, off duty, or retired, and that raises to kind of a different level of... I'd like to just add one additional thing to that, is the certification course is mandated by either the agency that you were retired from or the state, like again, I go to Pittsburgh every year to get certified, and it's a state course. The same course that folks of the law enforcement officer throughout the state have to do to be certified, that's a course I have to take on. So we would take the same course that an active trooper would take to qualify. So we keep our proficiency levels up. I can learn just the clarification, have you certified that you need the card and you have to have your credentials or whatever to prove that you are a retired law enforcement. That's all the questions that I have. Can we move in then, Eric? Just curious, can you carry that on a train as well? Just curious. The credentials? Yeah. Okay, okay. Okay. Well, there's an extra level, there's an extra level of training to carry on. As far as retirement, retired? Ooh. No, because, yeah. I used to carry armed all the time when I was working for a living. Anywhere that I went, I was actually carrying on the plane, just like a federal sky-martial would. Right. Okay. Since retirement, no. So, here's a question that was brought to my attention. Somebody was sketching out a scenario where rather than go to an FLL, they would prefer, sorry, FLL. Federal Firearms Licensee. Ah, I'll tell you what you're saying, is license and licensee, right? Yeah, it's just interesting. All right, so they decide they want to make a greater profit and they wanna do a person-to-person transfer. And let's suppose they have a collection of firearms, 50 of them. And let's say that this bill were to pass and there were these requirements about background checks. Do you have to do, or maybe that's even a question for now, do you have to do a 4473 for each firearm and do the pay the background check fee for each firearm or is there a batching that happens? There is no federal fee to access the federal computer. That is a fee that's put on by the FFL holder. Because of the liability issue. So if somebody, if the bill was passed and I decided to do it after reading it, whatever that fee is, would be times the number of firearms. So if somebody wanting to transfer a collection of 50 firearms and redeem the fee is $25 or $50 per firearm, that's, it's per firearm. Because that spikes my insurance rate. It's not one back, it would be one background check, but there's no cost for the background check. The cost is the labor of me taking this firearm in and keeping the records, computerizing everything, keeping the forms and the increased liability. That's what the fee would be. Do you have to physically have that, let's say there were 50 in the collection, do you have to have all 50 brought to the FFL? Absolutely. You do. You can't, I can't sell a firearm, that's not. I should say I can't transfer. Usually we talk about selling. We can't sell a firearm that lets us on the premise. And it's in our books and it's in our computer system and we're doing a background check on the spot. So, 50 firearms would have to come in. And in a gun show setting, I've also been told that all the folks who are FFLs there, they're doing their background checks in Vermont at gun shows currently, is that accurate? Absolutely. Right, but the private sales that would occur at the gun shows would, if you go to exit, let's say you're at the very auditorium and you go to exit the very auditorium, do you have to go through anything people have said they're security guards at the exits? I've not been to one, but how does that process work? Could you describe it? First off, we're kind of leaning into the gun show loophole, which I've said many, many times there's no such thing.  If you're a dealer, you must follow A, D and C, meaning license, collect sales tax, have a business. So, someone's setting up at a table at the very gun show and selling firearms, did they devote time, energy and money to the selling of firearms? And the answer is gonna be yes. So, they need to have a license. So, there's really no loophole. Last year, the computer, the state, the national computer went down at the very gun show and I'm a vendor there, I'm one of the anchors. And jokingly, I went through, yelling, hey, anybody know how to do the gun show loophole because the computer's down, everybody was laughing because there's no such thing. It's either legal or it's illegal. And if it's illegal, why aren't we having the prosecution? But the folks, okay, so the folks who followed or that definition, that would exclude, let's say you have a gun that you want to sell for whatever reason, you don't feel like going with Craigslist, you'd rather go to the Barrier Autorium. You don't have to go through that process there. If I'm there and I'm not at a booth or, and I don't know also who has access to, can anyone who sets up, the term I've heard before is tabletop, anyone who's setting up at the Barrier Autorium can get access to run these checks? No, they have to be a dealer. They do have to be the dealer. But you have to be a dealer to sell firearms for a profit. But there's different categories of people in that auditorium that are doing different practices in the same location, is that right? Yes, you have the Vermont Trappers Association, they're promoting the trapping, no license need. You have the Practical Pistol Shooters Association, they're trying to recruit members to shoot targets. It's when you buy and sell firearms for a profit, you must have a federal license end of story. What Barry City did, they took it one step further and they created a city ordinance, no private gun sales on city property. So the person walking into the very gun show and selling a firearm privately on city property would be in violation. But outside of Barry, a private person walking into a gun show in another location in Vermont would not be in violation. Would not be in violation. And just curious, I'm also curious, in your business, what percentage and has it shifted over time that are, I guess the term assault style for lack of a better, what is the percentage of sales and have you seen more shift towards the assault style weaponry compared to the past and what's the breakdown look like? We're gonna, I'm gonna start calling modern sporting rifles because that's what gun dealers call them, not to confuse them with machine guns. We have seen an increase and the modern sporting rifle is probably one of the most popular firearms in the country. It's fun to shoot, you can shoot targets, you can hunt with it, you can do all these different things. It's no different than any other semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, it seems like the government, federal and state are discriminating on looks because these firearms that you keep putting in these bills are black and according to some people are evil looking. Well, we haven't been able to define evil looking but it seems to be, a black firearm with a plastic stock that people see in movies which are not the same firearm the ones you see in the movies are fully automatic machine guns. The six o'clock news with Afghanistan, Iraq, those are machine guns, we don't sell machine guns. We sell semi-automatic firearms just like this gentleman here who said his son has one. Maybe it has a wooden stock. So if we replace the black plastic with wood, is that okay? Well, I think that's why the bill is currently written, tries to avoid that, but so this change, so there has been an increase in our, is it more profitable to sell your terms of modern sporting rifles? Is there a higher profit one? No. Compared to more traditional ones? Profit margins are the same on a long gun or a firearm leadership system. Yeah, when you talk about the very gun show and the different gun shows, very has an ordinance. Very has an ordinance. So when you sign up to set up a table and go under this thing, who enforces this requirement for an FFL? The promoter of the show. Under federal law, when I show up at the very gun show and I have 18 tables, I have to have a copy of my license and a copy of my Vermont sales tax on my table to prove I'm a legitimate firearms dealer. And if the promoter goes through the show and somebody has, now they can sell antiques pre 1898 under federal definition is not a firearm. So they can sell antiques. And there's a lot of people who deal in antiques and cowboy and civil war stuff. And that's okay because it doesn't meet the definition of a firearm. So the promoter will go through. And obviously, I know the promoters, but they would, if there was a new vendor, where's your license? I don't have one. So they have been doing a good job of policing themselves, which I applaud because if you're breaking federal law, I don't want to be set up next to you. And I think you've got to touch upon more because again, I was gonna, if you're gonna more present Jess's question because how I understood you answer before about Barry, they would just separate with that specific ordinance, but I guess I'm just gonna be clear. Are you aware of any gun shows in Vermont that do allow private sales without a license? I mean, I'm getting I just, or are you, or did each private show define a private sale? Somebody spending 50 bucks on a table and setting up with firearms? Yes. I don't know, but if they are, it's a federal violation. So it's kind of a loop point here. It's a federal violation called the ATF, have them prosecuted. Pretty funny, who they are at these other shows are trying to enforce that. I mean, as you said, they just pick you out and bury, or who's the person picking new vendors there that wouldn't have a license? Well, it should be up to the promoter of the gun show. Because my feeling would be that if the promoter of the gun show walked by and saw him with no license selling modern firearms, that would put him at some type of a liability if something were to happen. So as a promoter, I would think he would wanna shut that practice down, knowing is a violation of federal law instantly. So I'm hoping... Have you ever seen that happen though? Have you ever seen someone analyzing if you're down? Yes. I attend two gun shows a year. The Barry Gun Show and the Morrisville, which has now been moved to the Fairgrounds. They're the two largest gun shows in Vermont. There's a couple little break-offs I don't attend to. Both of them have sent out emails with the tables when you sign up. You must have a federal license to sell modern firearms. They're reinforcing it now. And it's probably because of the liability attached that they just don't want that liability. Maybe some other states, I don't know. I don't care about other states. But in Vermont, I don't believe it's happening. There's a gun show this weekend at the Fairgrounds and I know the ATF will be there. At the Expo Center? At the Expo Center, the ATF will be there. So I want to go back to you're talking a little bit about the insurance liability. I just want to make sure I'm clear on where the liability rises from. Is it the fact that you've done the background check or is it when you're in possession of the firearms? Well, the liability is kind of a two-part. Kind of a two-part. If I sell 100 guns a year, my liability insurance might be $500. If I sell $10,000 a year, it could be $25,000 because my exposure is so much greater. The exposure to a possible incident. Maybe the firearm would be misused and we all know nobody takes responsibility for their own actions, you have to blame other people. So somehow it would come back that I should have known better. Even though the FBI said he's a good guy. So somehow they would find an attorney to sue me. The other liability portion is when I buy a firearm, and it goes into my system, before it goes out for sale on my rack, I do a safety check. Well, I do it before I buy it. Whereas that person bringing in 50 firearms or bringing in, I don't do any type of it because it's just a transfer. So does that put me at a greater liability because I didn't check that the firearm was safe like I do mine? If somebody were, if I were to transfer a firearm on a private sector and that firearm blew up, whose responsibility is it? Must be mine. I did the transfer. The guy who sold it privately and we did the transfer, I didn't know him. This guy's an expert, he should have known. I think I was gonna blow up if I had shot it. You know, so that's where the more firearms transferred is the higher exposure, the higher liability insurance. Tell me again the date after which or before when should we consider an antique and we don't? 1898. That's the federal definition. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. So, well I have two questions. One, in the bill in S-55, I've written, I think the operative sentence that I'm gonna ask about here is an unlicensed person shall not transfer a firearm to another unlicensed person in the last one and then talks back once to the background check. So if they just say, if the bill just says firearm, does that sweep in even things that are not considered firearms by the federal government? Does that broadly, does that work? I have to say no. If it says firearm, I think we would revert back to the federal definition of what is a firearm. Okay. So and the reason I'm asking it is another member, I'm seeing it the other day, and said they have one of their constituencies and I don't know, I don't know, anti-steroid, I think, and they sometimes buy whole states and sometimes within that is a collection of guns. My impression was that sometimes they are able to just sell those without, presently, without any kind of a background check. And I, again, my impression was that it was because they were antiques and they're not licensed. They don't have a, they don't have a house check. And that they were afraid that this would change that for them, that they would no longer be allowed. So your impression is that this, this would not change that. Well, unless the state of Vermont, for the purpose of this bill, is changing the definition of a firearm. Can we find that in here, Martin? Yeah, it's, that we need to look at a little closer because it does go into 40, 16, 8, 3, which doesn't talk about the age or anti, but I thought somewhere else we didn't have an age issue, but I mean, how old the weapons are.  Yeah, 50 years. 50 years it was, so it was worth it. Yeah, I would say we should probably, yeah. The other thing, just to throw to that conversation about who's a dealer, we had somebody read us the definition the other day, but I don't see it on our website. Do we have that? Because I think my impression in hearing it previously was that if you weren't doing it regularly, you could still be doing it for profit.  Disagree. Disagree. Federal law says devote time, energy, and money for the purpose of selling firearms. So that would suggest, well I suppose it's very antiques it wouldn't bring them in, but so if the, no, yeah, no, the antiques, once again. Somebody goes and buys a simple war collection. They could buy and sell that without being a dealer because it doesn't be the federal definition. May I follow up with your question? Because I just want to be kind of more clear on this estate sale piece though. But again, to get the anti-contention like for a state sale, it needs to be a pre-1898 firearm, right? So like if you go to a state sale and someone in the state sale has a gun from 1963, 1954, I mean like all these like, those would under this, would have to so go for the background check because those are not antiques under federal law. Yes. So can you, so can you tell me when you're talking about, what were the terms engage the seller? Listen, you have three terms, engage, engage in the business of buying and selling firearms. You devote time, energy, money. Has that been defined elsewhere or fleshed out? Well, I believe if you go to the IKF website, you could find the definition of a dealer and it would break it down pretty much into what I was saying.   Pretty tough and dry. Martin, are you looking through? No, I'm not, I just, I don't know what the provision is like. Anybody else? Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I'd like to, if I could, bring up something that I will see addressed here. Interstate commerce. Right now, we have people going to venture to buy firearms to save 6% or 7% if you live in chicken town. Are you gonna create lots of revenue for Vermont businesses by implementing all this where they can cross into New Hampshire and legally buy a firearm without meeting these requirements? Because right now, people are going to New Hampshire to save 6%. Why wouldn't they go to New Hampshire and buy their hunting rifle to prevent a 10-day waiting period? Though we're talking about lots of revenue to Vermont business. They keep going to New Hampshire and give them a Vermont ID and purchase firearm? Yes. You can say that. That's for everybody in my town, though. That's 6% for the first time. For what's worth, there is the pending Supreme Court case, though. Well, that's online sales. Mine personally. Online sales have to go through a dealer. That's federal law. You can't transport or sell firearms online between individuals. It has to go, somebody in New York could sell a firearm on an auction site to a Vermont resident. He cannot ship that gun to the Vermont resident. That's a federal violation. It has to be shipped to a dealer. And then all laws apply as though they were buying it in Vermont because they are technically buying it in Vermont. They're doing the transfer in Vermont. But I can see lots of revenue from people going to New Hampshire. Can just the opposite happen if people from Massachusetts come to Vermont and give you a Massachusetts driver license and purchase a firearm? Yes. Well, with it, let's, let me back up. Okay, well, let me just add, well, let me just add something.  What type of firearm? I believe it was a shotgun, but I don't know what it was. That's what he eventually bought. That's what he bought in Vermont. He bought it in Vermont because he got denied it in, they wouldn't sell it to him in Maine because all he had was a Vermont ID. Now some dealers, because of the increased liability and not knowing every specific law will choose not to do out-of-state sales. Now, we do out-of-state sales. So someone from New Hampshire who comes over would like to purchase a firearm. We can legally under federal law sell it. But what typically happens is it's the other way around because of that 6% sales. I could offer a 10% discount and they would go buy it in New Hampshire just to put it to the man on the 6% sales tax. It's just the way it works. Yeah, I'm wondering if the case we're looking at here may have been one of those, maybe denies. Six cents to you. Might have been a, that's what I'm just thinking. It was used with the Vermont license, but somebody got a bad feeling. I saw something on TV. It could be. It could be. It was on TV a couple of maybe a month or so ago. And basically it was a gun deal at some large city somewhere. And they said, you know, they've got a code word. Somebody walks in and they look at this person and they don't look right. It's a code word and everybody's aware that to be on the word. Which we have the same. We, if somebody, if it just doesn't pass the sniff test, you know, everything has to be reasonable in nature and it has to be common sense-based. A lot of indicators that maybe I pick up on, maybe other gun shops wouldn't because of my law enforcement, but we turn away sales. Just, I don't want to be involved in it. And when I got on my point too, because I was curious too, of maybe it went back to, like you said before, that white lie that sometimes you'll use to not do a sale because you don't feel it's right. So presumably it makes sense. I mean, well, sorry, I'll say one just can't do it today. Yeah. Thank you. I really appreciate your time. Okay. Thank you very much. I keep this one there. Yeah. Go ahead. Please do. I'm sure I'll be marked up a few times before. I hope so. This is starting point. That's why it's just the amendment that probably doesn't include the other language. Did you have the actual event ties that you're actually going to have this one? Okay. I suppose you meant it. That would be an added to that. Yeah. They've got great stuff here. Thank you. Yeah. Well, these are both the same. You need to get the most of both the same ones. So we need to get you, thank you, have another copy. That's what we got. Okay. Which one? Great. Then we have, the next one is like we were justifying together. Now I've seen something and said something. And now we can get you. Thank you Patty. Thank you. You're welcome. You're welcome. I'm dead. You're passing. Yes, I am. I'm blind. I'm blind. I'm blind. School phones are on these. I'm blind. I'm sorry. I'm blind here. I'm being heard the early. Early education is happening. Are we going to go down? I'm going to get down there. Okay. I'll just keep my last one. Oh no, no, no. I'll get it. Okay. Is there? No, there's something I checked. Several. It's canceled, but ours canceled. Please, please. So, welcome. Thank you so much for coming. We do record our testimony, just to say no. We're testing it if you can suit up for the record. Sure, there you go. Thank you for hearing my testimony today. My name is Madison Newt and I am a freshman at Jonathan State College. I was in middle school at the time of the Sandy Hook Mass Curve in a town right next door to Newtown. 9.35 a.m., Reading Connecticut. I was walking through the hallway to my science teacher's classroom when the government shot through the doors of the school. I was in the next town over. Dawn, Mary, and Natalie ran out to the hallway and screamed, Shooter, stay put. Dawn and Mary were then shot dead. I was opening the door to my classroom, the next town over. Lauren, the substitute teacher for the day, was trying to hide her students in the bathroom when he made his way into the room killing her and 15 children while I was picking up papers off my teacher's desk, the next town over. Victoria was trying to lock her classroom door when he barged in and killed her. I was leaving the classroom. Jesse was screaming at his classmates to run when he was killed while I was walking down the hallway. Anne was holding Dylan in her arms trying to protect him when they were both killed while I was stepping back into the computer lab. Three other children of Victoria's class informed the murder while I was sitting back down. 9.40 a.m. The massacre ended when he shot himself in a first grade classroom while I was sitting in the computer lab, the next town over. In the five minutes, the gunman was able to murder 26 people. In the time it took me to walk to my teacher's room back, he murdered 26 people, the next town over. I remember my wood shop teacher telling me about his granddaughter. He was in the process of making her a train and he was so excited to give it to her. He had even just retired to spend as much time with her as he could. But she died that day. Although I don't live in Connecticut now, I am forever changed by this event. After that day, I was terrified to go to school. I even refused to go for a while and I'm still terrified. My community thought we were immune. What makes this thing for monos? We are not immune. We learn this after the discovery of the journal of the student from Fairhaven. Our schools aren't safe, our movie theaters aren't safe, our public spaces aren't safe. Why do we think we are immune? It is true universal background checks aren't going to fix every issue, but passing them is a huge step in the process of working on the issue of gun violence. So far they have stopped over three million people from getting guns. With background checks, 47% fewer women are shot dead by intimate partners. Imagine how helpful this could be to women in Vermont as Vermont has the eighth highest rate of women dying by domestic abuse in the nation and two thirds of those deaths are by firearm. 48% less gun trafficking happens in state with background checks. Vermont is ranked 20th in the nation when it comes to gun trafficking. That is huge. People come from all around England to buy guns in Vermont and bring them back home. Imagine how many crimes would have never have happened. Imagine how many people could have been saved from the horror of gun violence. Vermont is ranked 15th in the nation for suicide and over half of those suicides are done with firearms. States with universal background checks, suicide rate is lowered by 53% and their suicide rate overall drops 31%. According to VPR, 89% of Vermonters support background checks and 82% of Vermont gun owners support background checks. Why are we putting our citizens in danger when they clearly want gun safety bills? Why do we not have an assault weapons ban? We know the destruction they can do. We've seen it time and time again after every mass shooting. Why? Mass shootings in schools are not the only gun violence we have in Vermont today. We know background checks have saved lives and I urge you to pass this bill out of this committee. I have had enough. My fellow students have had enough and I urge you not to put politics before our lives.  How many more will it take to die? Please act. Thank you again for allowing me to testify. Thank you. Members of the committee. My name is Clay Lasher Summers. I feel like I should tell you I was born in Vermont and my sister and her family have lived in the Northeast Kingdom for 40 years. I was also raised in Vermont until second grade. I live right over the border in New Hampshire where I own a small farm. I now serve as the executive director for Bensense, Vermont. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak today. Bensense, Vermont is a growing coalition of concerned citizens, gun owners, non-gun owners, Democrats, Republicans, progressives, independence and survivors and more who understand that there is no threat to public safety in the United States and in our states that loom as large as gun violence. Bensense, Vermont advocates for universal background check legislation and other measures that will keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. On behalf of Bensense, Vermont, I am here today to urge the committee to support Senate Bill 55. Vermont needs a background check law that is comprehensive, one that covers unlicensed sellers. People that we have already identified as too dangerous at the federal level, like convicted felons, domestic abusers in the severely mentally ill can easily avoid a background check by purchasing for private sellers. Under current federal law, guns sold between private parties, person to person or at gun shows are exempt from the background check requirement. Requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales is a single most effective policy for keeping guns out of the hands of people with dangerous histories. Current Vermont law has no background check requirement. While federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct criminal background checks, there's no such requirement for unlicensed sellers. Prohibited purchasers like convicted felons, domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill can exploit this gap in the law and avoid a background check by purchasing guns from private sellers. Often in sales arranged online or at gun shows. The way the current NIC system works, licensed gun dealers start a NIC check by contacting the Federal Bureau of Investigation or state point of contact. The check is usually run by phone or computer after the prospective buyer provides a government issued ID and completes a federal transaction record for FTR. The dealer records information about the gun being sold including manufacturer, type, model, caliber, gauge and serial number. The dealer is required to retain the FTR regardless of whether sale is made or the buyer passes their background check. The NICs background check is valid for up to 30 days and only covers a single transaction. A single transaction can involve multiple guns. In most cases, a check takes only a couple of minutes. According to the FBI, roughly 92% of checks are render an instant verdict. If a check is clean, the gun is sold. If it's denied, the sale can't go through. In about 8% of cases, the verdict is delayed and the seller has to wait three days. If there's no verdict after three days, the sale can go through. In April of 2015, Dylan Roof was sold the 45 caliber block pistol at a Charleston, South Carolina area gun store despite confessing to a drug possession in a month earlier. The seller ran a NICs background check which was delayed and assigned to an FBI official in West Virginia. The official failed to discover the confession for drug possession before three days had passed and the sale to Mr. Roof was completed. The confession would have disqualified him from buying the gun he used to murder nine people at the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on June 17th, 2015. I have to get some water. Background checks are a systematic way to keep guns out of the wrong hands and save lives. Since enacted, they have blocked over three million sales of people with felony convictions, domestic abusers, fugitives, and other people prohibited by law from having guns. This loophole in the system make it easy for millions of guns to change hands each year with no background check and no questions asked. In fact, it's an estimated 22% of gun transfers take place without a background check, often between strangers who meet online or at gun shows. As of January 1st, 2017, 19 states and Washington, DC go beyond the federal level by requiring background checks for all handgun sales. In the 19 states, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington, Hawaii, that have background checks, they go beyond federal law. 47% few women shot to death by intimate partner. 47% fewer suicides in a study and data that was obtained that was from data that was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Fatal Injury Reports between 2000 and 2015. 53% fewer law enforcement agencies are shot and killed in the line of duty. Data on those deaths were obtained from the FBI's law enforcement officers killed and assaulted database in December of 2016. Population data for law enforcement officers, police protection, persons with power of arrest were taken from the United States Census Bureau. In closing today, I cannot get on a plane in the United States without someone doing a background check on me. But I could go places in this country and buy a weapon and not have done that. I am grateful beyond words as a survivor of gun violence and as the Director of Gunsense, Vermont, that in Vermont, you have the opportunity to pass life-saving legislation. And I am urging this committee to not put politics in rhetoric. And you have a chance to do something that is going to matter. And to me, Vermont has been on the leading edge of many, many things. And I am just really hopeful that the divisions that have been caused by this issue can somehow be remedied so that women and children and husbands and wives do not have to suffer. Would I have suffered? What Madison has suffered? And what many other survivors in this state have suffered. Thank you very much. If you have specific questions, I'm glad to take them by paper. Just a quick question, though, as well. I'm sorry, I just want to... If I can answer it, I will, and if I can't, I'll get back to you. Somebody will write the question down. No, I just... The statistics, if you could provide us any of the reports that you've got. Oh, I can do that. I'd be great if you could get back to Mike. And if you're not ready, at this point, to comment on the amendment, the LaLonde amendment, which you should have received. Yeah, I did. If you haven't, now, if you could provide written comments on that as soon as possible. I can say that, you know, personally, if there was something that could be done about magazines, you know, the amount of magazines one can have, right? And to me, that only makes sense, right? The feeding devices that do that. If there's something that could be done with that. And I just got this late last night, so I haven't been able to look at it. But I will, I was looking at it, and it's just gonna take me a little bit to write about it, and I will write about it. I mean, basically, you know, there are things with gun violence, bills that make perfect sense based on what we've been seeing. So I will write to this. Yeah, thank you. You brought up the example of the background check failure with the shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. Right, and apparently there was a failure of the background checks with the shooting of the church in Texas. And the more you hear about it, many of these serial mass killings passed the background checks, they weren't. They had no criminal history or whatever. They were able to get their guns. But the other question is, is that there are lots of holes in the background checks. Existing background checks. Local authorities don't report things. I mean, this thing in Florida who had numerous encounters with the law and other issues that should have been read flags in the other examples. What, what can we do to fix that? Well, I'm gonna say first of all that I, there will be a failure in any system that you have, you know, any system. I, you know, there's just many failures. So what I would say is that, you know, the way that I approach this is that you pass, you pass gun safe legislation, you have them in your state, and then you have to do a lot of education about how this is going to work. Because in my mind, and it's not, I don't like to debate it very much. I think that just because we have examples where this might not have fit, you still have enough statistics that show that it has worked. And obviously, in my line of work, the fact that you can say one line was worth a lot to me. And our work with survivors all across the country. And when I started doing that, there was 10 that joined. And we have thousands and thousands and thousands and almost a hundred thousand. And, you know, I just, I know that in states where they have gun safety laws, and even as a package, they have safer citizens. My question was from Madison, a little off of this, but I was excited to hear, you know, you're not a Vermonter, that you, they're going to Johnson State. Yeah. I'm just curious, what brought you to Vermont? What is it about Johnson State that they got you here? It's beautiful up there. I think it's really, really beautiful. And I like that. I like the location, that it's smaller. And yeah, I think it's, I mean, it's beautiful. It's beautiful, yeah. Yeah. Madison is also the leader for March for our lives. I know, it's about failure, yeah. Well, thanks for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right, thank you, everybody, for giving me the pleasure. So, that, in terms of when we're over, which, I don't know if we'll have to get back, but since it was Caleb about youngest's teachers and so on, they even shut down daycare to come. So I'm like, I'm definitely, I'm not going to be there. We, so we're back here at one, and we're not going out. Right, right, right. Well, that's Selena, I should get going, but, so welcome everybody.   My name is Raga Jemez. I'm with Arkham Media, which is the building. My name's Emma Blisske. I'm with Zatz Renfrew Consulting. Theo Ortsberg with the Treasurer's Office. I really love it with myself. We're going to go around the Middlesex. Carolyn Hansen, I chair the Vermont Domestic Violence Vitality Review Commission, and I also work for the Charity General's Office. Alex Slavitt School. Joseph Trottier, Hartford, his concerned citizen. Julie Smart, public school teacher in Montpelier, and concerned citizen about gun safety and violence. Noah Shanelson, mainstream middle school doctor. Avery Smart, mainstream middle school law lawyer. Thad Klein, mental health worker in southern Vermont and Wisconsin. Fisher, concerned citizen, Berlin, Vermont. Emma Bauer, senior at Leopard Academy. Alex Klana, from Picham, concerned citizen of working for the students of this issue. Hazel Bay and Dr. Jonsberry. James Pepper, Department of State Students and Chairs. Alana Hansen, middle school, school, and a lot of things like that. Bob Bauer from South Stratford on MSDead. Here's Dr. Spocker, an Arctopathic Under-Lawyer. Thank you. Michelle Fay, I'm Dr. Hazel Bay. I'm a former member of the Skid-Mid-Ace. I am. And Trista Muddinger, with the necrastic group. Hi, I'm here. Welcome, everybody. Hi. So, I know, if you want to go individually or as a... Yeah. Okay, okay. Welcome. Thank you. There's a list here and there, and we do record everything. Okay. And so we'll ask you to state your name and put it right there. Okay. Hi, my name is Emma Bauer. I'm 18 years old. I'm registered to vote in and live in West Windsor, and I also live in Stratford, and as I said earlier, I'm a senior at Thetford Academy right now. I would like to thank you all for listening to my testimony today. I joined my colleagues before you because I'm making it my mission to fight for the issues I'm passionate about. I believe that in order to be an effective member of democracy, it's important to use every opportunity for positive change that we are given. It is our responsibility to take action. I believe that S-55 is an important step towards preventing school shootings and other gun violence in the state. I believe in this bill because it would help to ensure that all gun owners who purchase the guns legally would be mature and responsible. The message of this bill is especially important to me because I would like the state of Vermont to do everything it can to keep these children in its school safe. S-55 is one part of accomplishing this. As a supporter of gun reform, I have the privilege of living with a gun owner. My stepfather owns about a dozen guns, all of which are kept in a closet, about 10 feet from my bedroom door in West Windsor. Living with a responsible gun owner has helped me to gain perspective on this issue that I think many supporters of gun reform do not have. It allows me to understand every side of this issue. I've had many conversations with my stepfather about gun reform, most recently about S-55. My stepfather thinks that creating background checks for private gun sales will not solve the problem of school shootings in America. He thinks that those who wish to resort to that extent of violence, regardless of their motivation, will simply break the law and buy a gun illegally. I understand his opinion and I think many would agree with him. I agree that there are many, there are certain numbers of our society that should not own guns yet are willing to go through any means necessary to fulfill their compulsion. However, I do not believe that this means we should not pass this bill. As I stated previously, I believe it is our responsibility as members of the democracy to take action whenever possible. Yes, there is a chance that this bill will not be 100% effective in preventing school shootings. But does that make it worthless? No, it does not.  Yes. But should we simply sit by and let this violence occur without even trying? No. Again, we must never be inactive in the face of injustice as members of the democracy. It is also important to recognize that this is only one piece of the puzzle. Other measures such as the bill passed on extremist protection orders will help solve this problem. The issue of violence in school shootings is multifaceted, so the solution should be multifaceted as well. This measure will not single-handedly prevent all school shootings, but it may prevent some. That slim chance is reason enough for me to support this bill. This is one important part of the puzzle. I'm still mourning the loss of 14 of my peers and three adults one month ago today in Parkland, Florida. But mobilizing for change has helped me to move forward from this loss. I have seen an epidemic in our society and I'm doing everything I can to change it at my school and in my state. That's why I'm here before each day. I hope that all of you will do the same. Members of the democracy have a responsibility to make positive change. As our representatives, your responsibility is heightened. I ask you to avoid the simpler path in activity and help us make this positive change to protect our future. Thank you. Do I take questions if I ask? Yes, of course. So we do have an amendment which I didn't expect you to comment on today, but if you have a chance to look at it and want to send in additional comments that it's an amendment, it's a low-loan amendment and it adds some additional restrictions and some additional steps to take such as safe storage, banning high-volume magazines and such. So if you want to look at that and send us anything. But also if you could leave with our assistant, committee assistant or email us your written testimony, we'll put it on our website as part of the record. Okay, I'll do that, yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Great. My name is Hazel Faye, I'm 13 and I am in eighth grade at the St. John's Bay School. I know that gun reform is a controversial topic, but in light of recent events, it is evident that our current system is not working. Safety in our schools is very important. As gun laws protecting kids should take priority over any slight inconveniences gun owners might have to face. The ways we are protecting children are not working if children are still getting harmed. I find it interesting that people ban books containing violence to protect children. Yet in many states, including Vermont, a child can possess a gun. I urge you to support the provision in S-55 that raises the age to legally purchase a gun to 21. Unlike cars or other potentially dangerous objects, guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. It is not unreasonable to expect that guns should have a stricter background check in order to purchase them. When a car crash happens, we recognize the danger and make cars safer. We see belts and airbags. We also regulate people's behavior by banning practices like texting and driving. The universal background checks in a higher age limit are ways we can make gun ownership safer. Students deserve the right to get an education without feeling threatened by violence. Every time that we practice a lockdown or lock-in, students feel scared, thinking about why we are practicing or if we will ever have to perform a drill can be scary. Fear doesn't belong in our schools and by passing S-55 we can keep it out. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So, Eleanor's not here yet. Okay, that's okay. So, was there anybody else with you that we could... Okay, great. Alex, Alexie. I would never have thought waking up on January 16th... Oh, I'm Alex Mart, sorry. I would never have thought waking up on January 16th that my school would become a statistic. Or on 9.45 I entered my classroom expecting to spend 15 minutes conferencing with my teacher. Instead I stayed in that little yellow room huddled in a corner for over two hours. When the announcement was made that we would go into lockdown, we thought it was a drill. So no one was nervous. We knew very little, but as the minutes ticked by, information was gathered. Friends texting friends and the room were spreading. There were police cars blocking the entrances. A bank in town had been robbed at gunpoint. We continued to work, thinking it would be over soon, but slowly the truth seeped into my classroom. There were nine kids and one teacher in that room, all frantically trying to sort truths from lies. It was so scary to me. The fact that even my teacher didn't know it was true and what wasn't. After 45 minutes, an announcement from our principal came over the loudspeaker, saying that there was an armed person on our school soccer field. The whole west wing of the school, the side nearest the individual, had been sent to the auditorium. I continued to be in lockdown in that classroom. This is when I emailed my parents. They reassured me, but even through the emails, I could tell they were worried. We were all, we all were. At 11, they shot him. We heard the echoes of every one of those gunshots. They say he was waving on a gun, threatening to kill himself. Instead, nine officers shot him. Even throughout the rest of that day, I learned more and more information. This man had been one of our kindergarten teachers' sons. He died that afternoon and every 60 hours when gunfire echoes through the halls of the schools in the United States had become my reality. We were the lucky ones, the ones who walked away alive. Last month, my peers in Florida gave their lives just for going to school. Closer to home, my peers in Fairhaven were slanted to die. But please don't underestimate the impact of this fear and uncertainty on every family in Vermont. If people are coming into federal state buildings and attempting to shoot adults every 60 hours, I bet you would have put your foot down and done something. Why is it different when the children of your community have this ever-present threat hanging over them? I support each of these gun bills because it is important and is what our future needs. Isn't a child's safety more important than owning a semi-automatic weapon? Isn't a child's safety more important than the convenience of someone who wants to buy a gun without the hassle of a background check? Thank you. So I know she's gonna, so we'll just switch to our testimony and when she comes to you. Yeah, okay, it's great, it's no challenge, it's great. James, is this good time? Oh, sure. Hi, James Pepper, Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs, and I haven't had a lot of time to look over the amendment, but I do have some thoughts about a lot of this. So if I run into any problems, maybe I'll supplement my testimony with some written testimony there in the week. So our department is very supportive of all of the gun bills that are being proposed here. We think that anything that can move us in the direction of preventing mass shootings or diverting guns to criminal enterprises is an important step. I think I'll start with the universal background check and I'm sorry I wasn't here this morning, so if my testimony is duplicative, please let me know. But so I spoke to an ATF agent last night about background check, or the NIC system particularly, and he said that this is a really important bill. There's a state that doesn't require background check for private sales, so a lot of people will come to our state to sell guns for that reason, not because they want to participate in a criminal enterprise or sell guns to prohibited people, but because it's not illegal here. And so this bill, just kind of a big picture, will separate out people that are doing this for criminal reasons from the kind of people that are just doing it inadvertently, or because it's not illegal. So he explained the NIC system to me a little bit. He said that in Vermont, you know, federal and FFL will make the phone call to the NIC system, and it takes about 20 minutes to get a background check, but they'll get either proceed, delay, or deny. And the denial that's pretty obvious what to do is pretty obvious what to do. The delay is kind of a strange situation. He said that 60% of the cases that are delayed are because of domestic violence, and what'll happen is they'll see a charge for domestic violence, but they won't see a resolution, or they'll see maybe a conviction for simple assault. And so what they'll do then is they'll fax an inquiry to the court of jurisdiction as to what happened in that case. And the facts will usually just sit on the fax machine until the three days has expired, and then the gun is sold at that point. So, and then if they find out that they are prohibitive, if ATF then finds out that they are a prohibitive person, they have to go and try and retrieve that gun. So that's just an issue spotting thing that he mentioned to me, and I'm not sure that this bill deals with that situation, but I know that the amendment has a 10-day waiting period which would probably solve that problem. Let's see. I appreciate you bringing up your conversation with ATF because my understanding, I think in general, federal employees are not, do not come to testify. They don't come to testify, but I was just talking about broadly the mixed process with him. So it's helpful for you to. Right, yeah, exactly. Because recently in your role, I assume my question is in your role, do you work with ATFs? We do, yes, yeah. And we're thinking about trying to get this one officer to do our training to help us understand these issues more fully, too, this summer. So another kind of, I guess, oversight of the current law is that, or even in jurisdictions where they adopt universal background checks or they require private sale background checks, so they'll have a gun that's been used in a crime, they'll trace it back to the original owner, and then the original owner will just say, well, it was actually stolen from me. So very often, step one is to pass the universal background check, and then you'll start seeing the jurisdictions that pass those start having mandatory reporting for stolen firearms, laws that do that. And then that, again, leads to safe storage laws also, which I think is also in the LaLanne demand map. So that kind of covers that oversight, I guess, of universal background check. So I think it's a really important bill. I just would like to say that, and we fully as a department support that, and hope that it passes. So moving to the amendment, I would love to have a little bit more time to go over the constitutional issues. I think clearly the assault weapon ban and the large capacity magazines, every federal court that's looked at that has upheld these bans. They generally apply intermediate scrutiny to them, and if you guys remember, I'm sure, that the challenge law must further an important government interest, and in this case, it's public safety. And that it must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest. So there's kind of a watershed case in the Second Circuit New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Cuomo. This was challenging, an assault weapons ban. Tell me if I'm repeating earlier testimony. Okay, yeah. And so the Heller decision said that the second amendment is central to self-defense. And so assault weapons certainly aren't generally used for self-defense. And large capacity magazines, they're very little used for self-defense. And then they also said that even if you don't have access to AR-15s, there's plenty of other firearms that you can use for self-defense. So those are the two justifications for why a large capacity ammunition feeding device or assault weapons ban was upheld in that situation. And I think that would apply here, too. I think that that kind of, that decision raises possibly an argument against increasing the age to 21 because there you're not talking about just assault weapons, you're talking about all firearms. So I can see how there might be an argument that if the purpose of the second amendment is self-defense, that you're denying that right to people that are 18 or 20. The NRA just filed a complaint against the law in Florida that raised the age to 21. They raised that argument. They also said that this would have a disproportionate impact on young women. So they tried to bring in a gender argument as well because they are more likely to become the victims of domestic violence. So they have an enhanced need for self-defense. So do any of those laws have exceptions in terms of the age restriction? Like military outhounds or fake meat? All that has to look into it. Yeah. And let me add one other one that's not in the building now because there are two exceptions in S-55. An additional one that we're looking into and considering is if an individual in that age bracket has passed a state certified firearm safety course that with that certificate, they can also be able to buy out a long gun, not a hand gun. Does that change as a constitutional analysis at all? All right, because it would be an absolute question. Does it make a difference if it's not passed? It seems like it would, but again, just add to this though that 12 states, I think now 13 including Florida and the District of Columbia have a total ban until 21. So, and then the way I see it, the age of 18 was pretty arbitrarily chosen, you know, 21. There's no justification for why 18, so why not 21? Do you know how, or could you please find out how long those states have those laws on the books? I'll find out, sure. With respect to the 10 day waiting period, there's a very recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case that upheld California's 10 day waiting period. The Supreme Court had a chance to review and they denied cert on that. So, it's Sylvester V. Harris and it's 843, F3rd, 816, correct? So, James, just for some of the people in the room, when the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert, what does that mean to you? So, that means the party that lost and the circuit in the Court of Appeals petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse that decision and they looked at the, I mean, they only grant cert to, I think, 2% of the petitions that they get. So, it's not because they thought that this was the right decision. Sometimes they just don't, they wait till the facts are perfect before they decide to move forward on a case. But that means that that is the law in the Ninth Circuit at least and that this law has been upheld, so. So, this safe storage provision. So, of course, safe storage was an issue in the Heller decision that was overturned. However, the law in D.C. was much more restrictive than this law in that it basically banned all handguns. You know, it said that in your home that the handgun had to always have a trigger lock or be disassembled. So, even if it was in your possession, so basically you can never have a handgun. It's usable. In the Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that. Massachusetts has a safe storage law that I think this one, from what I understand, is based on. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2013 upheld that law. And so, I think that, you know, I think that this, you know, Heller wouldn't prevent this law from moving forward. So, could I ask a question about that particular? So, the key term, I think, in that provision is the immediate possession or control. Is that a concept that is dealt with in other areas that state's attorneys deal with as far as in prosecutions? I mean. A call that is defined? Well, immediate possession or control. I mean, you know, if you're prosecuting someone for drug possession, if it's an immediate possessio