One final comment, everyone. And don't pay attention to the lineup of the bills. I'm going to go in a different order on the bills. But a public welcome to speak about any of the bills, any of the five bills, is our court witness. And hopefully it will be breached. Then we can start to modify the bills I plan to start with the bill on a shooting contest. It was an F-72 and it was an F-22. Morning. Phone out. How are you doing? And then the other two bills, which have to do with the word, can be exalted. Morning, Ed. Hey. Here's your witness, Peggy. Peggy. I'll switch on. OK. So, OK, let's start. It's on. Hello, everybody. OK, hi. My name's Ed Cutler. I'm here representing the gun owners of Vermont. And we're here to make a final appeal. The Rogers bills are wonderful. And as I said the other night, we support them fully. We are hoping the other bills are voted down in this committee today, as far as the Senator Baruch bills. And we've also heard, I don't know how true it is, but it was in the paper, that Senator Rash will be trying to drag him out of this committee, regardless of what the committee does. We're hoping that you stand firm. Well, I can tell you right now, in conversation with Senator Rash, that is absolutely untrue. OK. He would never do that. There are members of the Senate who might try. Senator Rash would stick with this committee. OK, excellent. And what we're hoping, actually, we're hoping that the committee stands firm. Well, there may be other members of the Senate who might try to do that. Well, hopefully it won't happen. Again, you've heard lots of testimony. The reason we want the other bills held over, and during the first hearings we had when I was here, you asked for a serious study on this type of thing. We can supply Dr. John Latt, who's one of the world's foremost authorities, on these types of laws. He's willing to come and speak. You probably have to hold it off till next year, but we can get him here within two to three weeks notice. If you get me noticed, I'll get him up here. We hear a lot of rhetoric in this room from different groups. And this guy has done major studies and is willing to be an expert witness. So we're hoping that this could be allowed. I'm going to just explain why I said no to your request, because several emails have questioned why I said no. And I said no because I try to keep things as much as possible to be a Vermont response and not a national response. Now, that's difficult, but if I heard from Dr. Latt, I am sure that Gunsense or the Gifted Center or some other center would be available to immediately refute anything you said. I wouldn't be in a dueling contest between experts, which we already are to some extent. And I did the same thing during civil union. And I was highly criticized. I had a group of, there was a guy from out of state, I can't remember his name, he was fairly famous, he had run for U.S. Senate, he was a black individual. Allen Keyes. Allen Keyes. Yeah, that's Illinois. Yeah, Illinois. I said no to Allen Keyes. Well, John Bloomer, now Senate Secretary, invited Allen because I said no to them and then the committee. Bloomer, who was a member of the committee, invited Allen to come and speak at the pavilion. Well, immediately upon all that happened, all the participants from the pavilion then came over here to charge in to me for not allowing Allen Keyes to speak. And I said, if you want, I'll find one from DC experts to come up here and tell the other side. And Mr. Keyes can speak and we'll have that battle. But tell me what you'll have accomplished. I do look at Harvard studies, I do look at, I actually looked and Googled Mr. Lott, found out, he's got a lot of information that is useful. I also found out he was on the Glenn Beck Show, which didn't impress me much, but that's just my political philosophy. But that's been my policy as chair of this committee from that day forward. And I was highly criticized, as some of you may remember for not, I think it's even in a book about the civil union called The Civil War or something like David Mollets. Anyway, so I've been fairly consistent that, so anyway, I just needed to explain that I get that off my chest. There was nothing personal that and I do appreciate your effort to try to get somebody from the National Union. But I know, you know, then we get into dueling experts. Okay. Got a lot of the things I would also like to mention. There have been a number of things going around. The big thing with us is Vermont has a 230 year history of non-violence. Occasionally, yes, things happen, but we should all be proud of what this state is and what this state and how it is. We are constantly being bombarded. And again, they'll know it, friends, but you were on VPR saying this is a small step and you want to keep going further. This is not going to stop. And I think it's time to draw the line. The people in this state are good, decent people. And all I can do is just ask, please, fight to the nail against anything except for John's bills. John's bills are great. They do help with people who are being or could be falsely imprisoned. And there's only one thing I would like to think of is in the future we go further with that because people move to this state. If they happen to be competition shooters or honors or whatever, if they have those high capacity magazines, quote, they won't be able to bring those firearms with them. And those firearms do go back to the 1860s. Thanks. I'll protect you, Dick. Thanks, John. Yeah, my God, great. Mix me. It would be great if we could, you know, someday have this thing over some days. Dusty James taught me never to let that make my mind. Yeah, it would be good if we could somehow allow those people that want to move into this state to bring their firearms with them. We have hundreds, literally, of people in my organization that have moved here because of those gun rights. Right now in Vermont is the standard that 17 other states have followed by going to constitutional carry, AKA Vermont. We start losing those rights and it's not only us that does it, but a lot of people around the nation lose their rights to them. I understand very well your fear that we take one little step here. It becomes another giant step towards taking away more and more of what you see as your constitutional rights and then it gets to the issue of open carry, it gets to the issue of concealed weapons, it gets to the issue of, you know, all of that. I understand that clearly. We'll say about Senator Rogers' bills. I do support four of his bills. The reason I didn't take up the bill that repeals the magazine ban is because it's in the courts right now. And as a matter of fact, my statement in the journal of last year when I voted no on the magazine ban is part of Max Mish's defense against the charges in Bennington for carrying the magazines, which surprised me that I was part of that defense. I didn't offer to be part of it, but my statement is. And I'm hoping that they do find it either unconstitutional through the effort of the lawsuit or through the Max Mish case. But that's the reason we didn't take up the repeal of the magazine ban. Yeah, I understand that, and I do really appreciate it. And John's done an excellent job, I know, sometimes. He got a little mad at me once, but, you know, we do. Well, we all get mad at you once in a while, eh? And we all get mad at you. I know, actually, you know that I get along better with Bill than anybody else, right, and Joe, and Alice. Oh, that's good to know, come on. Actually, I get along with everybody in this committee. No, we had one, and, you know, that was overdone in five minutes. Yeah. All right, well, let's move on. Anything else? And I understand your concern. I really do. Yeah. And I have not, you know, we'll be working our way through these bills today. As I said, my hope is that they do find the ban on the magazine ban portion of the S-55 unconstitutional. Yeah. Unconstitutional. Understood. And Phil. Would you, we had a really good debate on TV a couple years ago. Would you be willing to do something like that in this building? Well, yes, short answer. Longer answer would be, where in the process you would want to do that. Anything to be convenient to you. Well, I'm not an unemployed, I'm retired. So I have any day possible. Why don't you two set that up offline? Okay, good, okay. Any questions or? I think I've made comment clear. I will say, you know, one thing I regret about last year on S-55 is I got forced to vote. I felt that I needed to vote no. But when I voted no, I lost all control of the situation. I had no influence whatsoever on the final outcome. Yep. And, you know, the current makeup of the Senate, the House believes me to believe that that's not gonna be any better if I just say no. So that's been weighing heavily on my mind, frankly. All right, thank you. Okay, thank you for having me. All right, Eric, do you want to join us? Yeah. Maybe we could start with Senator, I wanted to do the order of, I think it's S-1. That would allow the shooting contest. It seems to me that that's an unfortunate byproduct that I think most people agree was a mistake to end the ability of the shooting contest to have large magazines. So if we could start with that bill and then work to S-72 and S-22. The other two I think may need a little revision but I don't think are necessarily all that controversial. Doug, did you say S-1, Senator Sears? Yes, I think it's S-1. By the way, I've got all these phone calls that have come in for all the millions of minutes. I want to look for them. Yeah, can you give me for a minute if you can ask what that'll draw mean? Do you have? Yep. So the S-1 that I have just is the repeal, but it doesn't show what we're repealing. I handed out earlier when we when I first went through the bill, an actual copy of the section. Yeah? Okay, so what should the first S-1? Yep. I'm just trying to find a copy of the Vermont statue. You've got it there. Looks like this. Yeah, yeah. Actually, no, it's 4,021. It's the next one, right under that one. You got it right there. Yep. Looks like you got it. Yep. Okay, 4,021 did it, right? Yeah. Yep. So Senator Sears, as you mentioned earlier, this has to do with the statute that you passed last year regarding large capacity ammunition feeding devices that was passed in Act 94 this year. The prohibition on that contained, you remember, a number of exceptions. Quite a lengthy list of them. And if you're able to sort of track down the handout that I passed out the first time you looked at S-1, which is the actual copy of it. We're going to be able to find that. All right. I don't know. I've got 4,019. Right. Well, I can just read this. Well, I wanted to just go through it. We'll keep trying to track it down. I would like to have it in front of me. Okay, thank you. Anybody have any chance people are going to make a copy? Somebody have one, and I can... What's the title there? It says on top, Vermont Statute's online, title 13, criminal procedures, section 4021, large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Oh, do we have yours there? No. You probably have mine. That's the other state. I have two statutes there. One is 4,019, and one is 4,021. 21, I have both of them. And here's another, and the extra 4,019. Well, we're really proud of you. We're glad you're the one for having it. You know, that was a song, but that's not a song. I know, you should be proud of me. But for other reasons. Oh, my God. Got it. Go ahead, Eric. I mean, it's hard here to... We don't have staff to... Well, you remember sort of conceptually that when the large capacity ammunition feeding device coefficient was passed, there were a number of exceptions. And if there were one, the particular exception that has one deal with whether or not to have a copy from you, I'll read you my language, it's free. But what it says is that this section shall not apply. Remember, so that's sort of your laundry list of exceptions. The any large capacity ammunition feeding device can move on into this particular one. I'll just read you the language. Transported by a resident of another state into this state for the exclusive purpose of use in an established shooting competition if the device is lawfully possessed under the laws of another state. So the first point about that is that it only applies if it's transported by a resident of another state into the state of Vermont. Remember that? And now, the whole idea was the shooting competition subject that was discussed, I think, fairly at length and the impact that the prohibition might have on these shooting concepts. So this exception was carved out, so that if a resident of other states were coming into Vermont for the exclusive purpose of these shooting competitions, then they could still bring their large capacity ammunition feeding devices in. However, in a separate section of that bill, you remember that exception was sunset. Yep. Everybody remember that? So now if you look at S1, now look at S1 itself. Yep. You see, there's a reference to the sunset section and the parentheses are lying 14 and 15. That exception only lasted until July 1st, 2019. Right. That was sunset. So that's the background. That's the state of the law as it is. What is S1 proposed to do? Reheal the sunset as that approach has been done in other legislation, solidness. So that the ability of outer state residents to transport the feeding devices into Vermont for purposes of the shooting competitions would remain permanent. I mean, if I remember back to our original discussion in the Senate floor, this was an area where we tried, I think we had almost unanimous support to change this, but because they didn't want to have a conference committee or they didn't want to have to go back and have another house vote, they didn't allow it to be changed. And that was one of the points where I made about losing control of the debate. Actually, I don't think it passed. Good. I think it would have if it had been by itself. Oh, I see. It was part of a larger thing that would have basically taken the ban out on high-teasing devices. Because I didn't vote for this one. Anyway, I move we insert into what the plan is to create a committee bill, whether we end up with five votes or one vote or whatever we end up is to have a committee bill and not have the numbers. So I would move that part, the first part, section one of the committee bill would be the repeal of the sunset on the shooting contest. Can I ask a question? Sure, of course. Eric, my, so it seems clear to me that it's referring to residents of another state. Right. And my assumption is to go back to Eddie's point, if someone moves here, this no longer applies to them. In other words. Now that they're a resident of Vermont. Yeah, so they come for a sporting competition when they say because they love it so much. They're now a resident of Vermont and no longer covered by the exception. That's what I agreed to. Okay. Then my other question is just about the word established. You could just say something about what you understand the word established when you're doing that. I think the intent back when that language was passed was that there be that the shooting competitions to which it referred to would be already in existence. I think at the time of the grandfathering, so to speak, or the exception. So that I think that I remember the discussion correctly. One of the concerns was that in fact, some competitions had already signed people up back then and they were already planning to be in existence. So I think that was the idea if I remember right. Is that the understanding of the committee? My preference is to allow the Hill Mountain Visual Game Club which currently in my knowledge doesn't have a contest to happen. As long as it's a recognized. Well, I guess that's what I'm asking. Yeah, my motion was to allow shooting contests and to only, I mean, it sort of goes back to our exemption for outdoor recreation and the unconscionable terms bill that as long as they have the waivers and all that stuff. I don't, I just would hate to say, okay, it's only established ones. And then I find out the Hill Mountain Fish and Game Club wants to hold a shooting contest because they haven't had one before. And frankly, I don't know if they've had them or not, but they've been, you know, been in existence for a hundred years probably and to lose the ability to have one of these shooting contests. So certainly there are, I mean, the Weathersfield Rotten Gun Club has had some contests like this every year. Yeah, but they would be covered but I'm worried about the ones that wouldn't be. Why would they be covered? They'd be covered because they've established that they're already established. They may not have set up the date for that contest. You know, they organize it one at a meeting that they haven't set it up, so. The intent is to have it, unless Senator Peruzza's got an objection, my intent and my motion was to allow them. Could I ask you a question? Yes. I don't like the idea of it just applying to ones that have been already established. But I wondered, when there are shooting competitions do, would your group somehow get a permit from somebody to have a, so I can't have a shooting competition in my backyard? I mean, is there a, some kind of an authorized shooting competition? Sanction. I'm gonna ask Chris Bradley from the Federation of Sports and Obstetrics or somebody else from that Federation. Can I answer that question? One of the hats I wear is past president of Mont State Rifle and Pistol Association and I'm current secretary treasurer. We have all sorts of CNP and MRA registered events and they're typically sanctioned by the MRA or CNP. We give them notice ahead of time so they can advertise these events. So when we have somebody coming in from out of state, it would be a very rare occurrence that they would travel that distance without first obtaining at least from the Mont State Rifle and Pistol to say a recognition that they are signed up. But the sanction event was in there. Yeah, I would be. Yeah, Michael. I would cover so Senator White could decide. I can't set one up. If we repealed this and took out the word established. We wouldn't sanction it. I wouldn't, it wouldn't cover, it wouldn't allow me to set up a competition in my backyard and invite all my neighbors.  I think the word sanctioned is for that. I would offer caution. I'm going to quote you. It's simply, we provide MRA and CNP sanctioned and registered events for a fund, and we predominantly use KMP for now on training site, which is a facility designed for rangers. So if we were to have a practice in preparation of the weekend before a state match, is that a sanctioned event? Or is it a practice that, and would that stop somebody from? We're looking for a word that other than established. Organized? Yeah, I was going to suggest organized. Also, Eric may answer the question, there is, isn't there not a statutory description of the shooting range? You know, there's statute. I don't know. Did you de-referenced? Yeah, there is. So you could only have them at shooting ranges? I don't know where else you'd have them. Well, I think your example was good to have one of these feet. But if you stick with existing statute, I think you can clarify that quite easily. Do you have one here, Evan? I'm not sure the answer to that. Okay, let me see. First off, there is a definition of a range. It's entitled 10. It's said in the title 10 section 5. Also, the language of non-resident, UBM has matches, and you could have a Vermont resident who was attending a college in another state and now wants to come back into UBM competition. Mr. Chair? Yeah. So I would not be able to support this if we're contemplating changing it to Vermont residents if you're just, at that point, you're undermining the ban itself. I would be able to support it if we swapped out the word established for sanction. I think we should just repeat that. So let me ask a question about that. So if we're saying that somebody can come up from Massachusetts with a magazine for shooting competition and participate in it, but my neighbor can't go to one because he can't. Because we have a ban on this. Well, in that case, I would say let's not repeal the sunset. Or let's just repeal the ban. Well, that's my point. If what you want to do is the way that we passed last year and allow this to go forward, this piece of law, I can support that. But in effect, we'd be rewriting it to weaken the ban if we... Well, why don't we just repeal the ban? I thought you said that. You were not doing that. Well, I wasn't planning to. But if we're going to get into such a debate about how we're going to define an existing shooting contest. My number one goal here is to allow established shooting contests to continue to go on past July 1, 2019. So if the only way we can get some consensus is to repeal the ban, then we don't have to worry about whether it's a Vermont resident, a New Hampshire resident, or any other resident. So moved. There you go. All right. Well. And let me explain. I don't think the monitor should be placed at a disadvantage to the out-of-staters. Is that so? Yeah. Which is what we're doing. Exactly. Well, I can't support them from the beginning. I've been clear. I can't support anything that weakens fundamentally the ban that we passed last year. I can support getting rid of the sunset. I swapped out, established for sanctioned. In fact, John and I had a conversation yesterday where sanctioned was his suggestion. So, but if the committee is going to go down the road of essentially undoing the ban for Vermont residents, I can't see that passing the Senate, can't see the passing the House, and I certainly can't vote for it. But I don't understand why we would want to put Vermont residents at a disadvantage. I don't view it as putting them at a disadvantage. If it were up to me, I would say I prefer to have the language than if you would prefer not to repeal the ban today, than the language needs to read that for the purposes of shooting contests, one may possess a high-capacity magazine, whether you're from Vermont to New Jersey or Alaska. And that you can only use that. Why should it be restricted to... I mean, for the purposes of that, you know, the National Golf Association makes certain rules, but I'm not playing at a local tournament. I'm not obliged to follow those rules. I follow local rules. So one day the superintendent decides you can play the ball, lift and clean and place the ball. So we play under those rules. Those are not rules that are sanctioned by the PGA, but we all play under the same rule. And the way you're trying to make it the Ramoners would be at a disadvantage. It's not the way I'm trying to make it. It's the way the law currently...  Frankly, Phil, that ban came out of the house with no debate and never got discussed in any committee of the Senate. Right. And I find it the most objectionable thing that happened in S55 because the Senate never got the opportunity. Now you're defending it as if it was part of a Senate bill. It never was. I've never got debated in the Senate. I'm defending it. It did get debated in the Senate. Where? We went. Everything we passed was under debate. Yeah, but it wasn't allowed to be changed because you had the votes to not change it. And what happened was that, you know, I still have nightmares about what happened. It would be allowed to be changed if you had the votes. I'm going to suggest then as an alternative that we allow Vermont... That for the purposes of shooting contests, we don't specify out of state, in state. We just say anybody who participates may possess a large capacity magazine for the purposes of the shooting contest.  No, it doesn't. It undoes the ban for Vermont residents. Yeah, but it's unfair to a Vermont resident who doesn't, who may want to... You go to the shooting contest. They supply you with a magazine and you use it to shooting contests. It doesn't allow you to possess it outside because you never owned it before the grandfathering. I can't repeat what I've said. Okay. Yeah. My motion would be that we repeal the ban on shooting contests but stop the language about out of state and state that the magazines be supplied by the sponsor of the... that they can bring, they can use them for the purposes of that. For the purposes of the show. Meaning anyone in state or out of state? Yeah. Why should a Vermont resident who wants to participate be held in a disadvantage? Well, I... My motion then would be to stick with current law because I was trying to... Excuse me, John. Do we have a point of order? Yeah. Yes, sir, but your point of order. There's a motion on the floor at the moment. And we're discussing it. So... I amended your motion. I believe I have the right to discuss the motion. You have the right to discuss the motion. Oh, I thought you were raking another motion. I heard second motions and third motions so I'm trying to figure out... I think your motion would be out of order but I could get the Senate secretary down to determine... Point of order-wise, for the purpose of clarifying and trying to get this conversation more concise, I will remove my motion and allow you to make yours. My motion is that we allow... that we allow any participants to possess for only that shooting contest to possess a high-capacity magazine. And by way of discussion, I will say I can't support that and I can't support a bill that's got that in it. What I will say is I was prepared to support John's bills as they have been presented to us. This is a fundamental change that undermines the case-at-law which your guiding principle was you weren't going to do that. No, it doesn't undermine the case-at-law because it allows... it would be written so that it only allows the participant to use it, whether they're a Vermont or perhaps a resident or whatever. Then I would repeat something Joe said at the hearing the other day. If that's in, I regard that as weakening S-55 and I will fight it as it moves out of this committee. So I just have a question of how that would work. When you say allow to use it there, can they possess it at home and bring it there? Well, if it's grand front, they still can't purchase it. Or are you suggesting there be ammunition, high capacity ammunition there provided by the club or whatever to use it? I'm not sure which is going on. I don't know how they'll work it out. I'm not sure what's going on there. Well, the big question is... Well, I'm not sure either. Can they take it home? I mean, can they have it at home and bring it? No, they still can't purchase it. It doesn't allow any purchase. It allows them to use it. To use it. How they get it, maybe they borrow it. I don't know how they get it. Are you saying, Senator Sears, that it only applies to people who are grandfathered properly? No. No. If they go to the contest and they're supplied with a high capacity magazine, they can use it at the contest. They still can't purchase it. When you go to a bowling contest, a lot of people don't bring their own balls. But you see what we're talking about is... They use the balls that are there. In various situations where, under the so-called ban, it will be fine for people to begin using, possessing, et cetera, and we will very quickly weaken that ban. At competitions only. Well, and as Alice points out, you can have them at home. No, she... He said... Well, there are people... There are people... That was a question. They will grant the log that you... You put it. Grants by them. But I thought the question was just asked if it only applied to grandfather weapons and the answer was no. And then her question was, are they going to be maybe supplied by the competition? That was her second question. And... And my response to that is, that's probably the way they should do it. The competition itself... Not to be to figure out how they get the bowling ball. I would just point out that when this law was passed, there was a short period before it went into effect, and an outside interest gave out high capacity magazines on the steps of the state. So there was a very ready... You know, it was effective October... The magazine ban was effective October 1st of last year and not July 1, like other parts of the bill. I'm just saying that there was an active attempt to undermine the ban. Yeah, but that's because you... You... Not you, Phil Baruth, but the supporters of the bill who wrote that in, wrote in for whatever reason, well, I wasn't a part of, wrote in October 1st. So it was completely legal that they gave them away. They might have been trying to undermine the ban, and you may look at it that way, but what they were doing was completely legal because you put that into the law. And my point is, if we change this existing provision to include Vermonters, it now specifically says it only applies to out-of-state residents. Yep. If we change it to Vermonters, there will be a proliferation of circumstances where it's okay for people to have and use high capacity matters. That's for the purposes of the shooting contest only. But suppose somebody goes to another state, buys one, brings it in for purposes of using in a shooting contest. Then they violated the law. I don't believe they would. They violated an unenforceable law. I don't believe they would. They violated an unenforceable law and they're enough to buy them with a photo at the wherever Max bought his or his girlfriend bought him, actually. I was... I mean, that's going to go on today.  How do you know that that magazine possessed prior to October 1st, 2018? I would just like the record to show that I'm in support of, yes, one, as written by John Rogers. Okay. So I'm going to say that I... I support it also, but I'm not... But I don't think that it's right to give, to have Vermonters at a disadvantage in a shooting contest because I don't... I mean, I don't know people who participate necessarily in shooting contests, but if I wanted to, I would be a little bit upset if I wasn't allowed the same... the same advantage that somebody from out of state. And I have to say that I... I voted for that last year, but I voted for it because it was part of a larger bill that I supported. I did not support the ban on the...  It's bigger and you have to... It's harder to hide. I mean, there were many reasons why I didn't support the ban in the first place. So... So given the fact that we have a ban and we can maybe make it more fair for Vermonters, I support Dick's... Do you have it written down? Well, I think the question is two ways I'm thinking, based on the sort of two thoughts I've heard the committee discussing is a policy decision for you, which way you want to go. You could phrase it as possess for the exclusive purpose of use and end in a sanction. Maybe it's the way we were going to possibly sanction or establish shooting competition, period, if you wanted. You could also say... So that was one thought. That sort of raised the question that Senator Nick and a couple others had talked about. Well, what if you're possessing it at a time when the shooting competition is not going on? Did you want to limit it? Because you could also say possess and end used at an established shooting competition. Are we talking about the grandfathered magazines? No. Okay. Then, I don't understand how anybody can view it other than a weakening of the band because you're contemplating Vermont residents now having a class of high capacity magazines that were not grandfathered that will be legal. They don't own them. They're not purchased. They would be using them at the shooting contest. Maybe the range has a bunch of them that they already have. I don't know. Yeah. I think we still can't purchase. That's not what I hear. Yeah. You can't purchase. I said you could bring your grandfathered one or if there's one available to view to use, I might use John's. If I'm at the shooting contest and John's got one and I use his, I didn't purchase it. I'm using it exclusively during the contest. If you phrase it that way, I think you would then, if you say possessed at and used at an established shooting competition. I think. As long as there were established, that doesn't mean that you couldn't do one that wasn't years ago. You mean that had, the sort of ongoing. I mean, the Hail Mountain Fish and Game Club hadn't had one in the last 10 years and they want to do one next year. So long as they're not eliminated from being able to do that. So under, possibly a resolution to this if I'm understanding right. So are you saying that the clubs are offering people grandfathered magazines or they could purchase new a whole bunch? I don't know how they would. Maybe people that are getting grandfathered magazines won't look to the clubs. Because if we're talking about the grandfathered magazines which would be easy for Eric to reference. So in other words, there's a provision that grandfathers then you could refer to that section. If those are the magazines that we're talking about, then it doesn't matter to me if they use them. Well somehow the club has the magazines or I borrow John's and I use it exclusively. I don't own them currently. Okay. But I want to go to this contest and if I use John's during the contest, I could do that because John's is grandfathered. But only during the, yeah if you don't confuse it. No I won't. So currently under the law if I hand Dick my 30 round magazine that is considered a transfer and is illegal. So even if we're at the competition I cannot lend him my magazine or my rifle. And I would be fine with if it's limited to grandfathered magazines and if it's at the competition. Yeah. Yes. I'm not purchasing and I'm not possessing it. Okay. Usually only using it during the contest. I understood people to be saying so. So Eric do you have enough sense of the committee's position? Yes. Are we saying sanctioned right? I think the word sanctioned was fine. Yeah. Yes. Don't confuse it. One other thing though. I shouldn't attend to it. One other thing is do you want to do you want to keep the the ability of the transport of the state for the shooting competition is a different concept. Yeah. That concept stays like it was in the prior language that got repealed or is repealed July 1. Yes. So for the purposes of the shooting contest if you live in New Hampshire you can bring the high capacity magazine just for the purpose of that. Yep. Bill do you have a comment? No more of Ramon Traditions Coalition. Our clubs current events are not sanctioned by a national organization. They're sanctioned by the club but they're organized is a much better term and a reference to the shooting ranges in statute which I just offered to Eric. Well. Would clarify that. Okay. Instead of sanctioned use the term organized. Okay. Can we reference the shooting range? I think that's a good idea. Yeah. Define in statute or? Yeah. We're over that in statute. Yeah. So that we avoid Senator White's. Yeah. We don't want her holding one. Backyard. But you don't. Definitely. She's got a big backyard but you've got a lot of pigs and dogs in that young backyard. Well that might be a solution to the pain problem. Yeah. I think our name has eaten his pig now. It's over at Curtis's. Curtis's. 12 times last spring. Curtis's. Barbecue. Curtis's barbecue is right in her backyard. And he has to get pigs in order to have a barbecue. No he wasn't. This wasn't a barbecue. All right. So. We know the motion. Peggy could you please call the roll. I'd rather not vote until we see the language. If you don't mind. Okay. All right. Moving right along. That's 72. 72 is next. So this one might actually have an amendment to look at. Because you remember we talked about. There's an issue that just Pearson brought up. Regarding the. Ability of the court to access certain kinds of data. So just sort of please the language on that a little bit. Yep. Oh this is a redraw. Yeah I just handed it out. Sorry. Okay. Do you want to add that to Peggy? So it's still a May. Yes. Still a May. Health care provider may notify the law enforcement officer. So it's and. It's May under HIPAA as well. I think that's necessary. Again that's language that tracks HIPAA. Yeah. And is consistent with the exception in HIPAA for the. Disclosure of protected health information by. Health care providers. Section two is where the change is. This is the recording piece. The. The piece where the court and the. Agency of Human Services most come up with data on. The use of. Streamers protection orders as well as. A possible impact on suicides in Vermont. You remember judge and this is if you look at the bottom. Page two over onto the top of page three. Judge Greerson was pointing out that they didn't really. Have the ability to track. What happened to the subject of the petition afterward. Where they referred to mental health counseling. That sort of thing. So instead I replace that with the others at least sort of a. Maybe another way you could get at it. Because they do have the ability within the ERBO chapter. To note whether an order was renewed or terminated. So that would at least tell you whether or not the. Person is still subject to the order or not. As well as. I noticed that there's a particular. Criminal charge. Within the chapter for violating. Now it also be useful to know what sort of. What sort of. Some information about. The. Just trying to. Gather information. It's not just him but. The. The organization that he's. Current I believe current. President. Or. Past. Is made of emergency room docs from a number of states. Which have passed you real posts. And they're trying to. Gather the information like that we use. Connecticut. Last year. So that we can see what the impact. Has been. I think this is fine. Yeah. So the issue of course comes up with regard to dangerous. Weapon. How this might be amended by. Other people. Assuming it means. Attach a. Fire. About that. We can. Wait until later on. But this. This. Language is part of the bill. That we. Passed last year in the governor's sign. The language of weapon and we expanded it. From fire on. Because we wanted to make sure somebody had a. Stick of dynamite. Or. Hang grenade or. Any other form of. Cindy. In terms of. Cindy every device. That it would be covered because if you think. About. When somebody is. In that position. You don't want to take away their firearms. Find out.  Hang grenades. Right. I agree with that. So that's the term weapon. You're correct. Anything we do here. Whether it's just a simple. Thing that we just. Tentatively approved. Until we see what error. Scott. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Will invite. Amendment I have spent a great deal of time talking to senator as well as representative grad. About my concern that if we do anything what will they do to it. Well, I've been assured by both that it's not their intent to go any further than this, both have admitted that you can't control what might happen on the House floor, the Senate floor. But I also have commitment from Senator Ash that he will stick with the committee whatever the committee does. And if we find ourselves in a position, we will have the votes I believe to bring the bill back to committee or to control the conference committee. So I am less worried as long as I vote for the bill that something that we don't anticipate will happen like it did last year. I think that was partly got out of I'm going to use the word out of control and a lot of people thought it was a great bill. So with all due respect to all of them, we all admit that things got added on that we never anticipated being added on to a bill that we passed last year. I thought it was just going to be about waiting periods. And in hindsight, many people would have part of the reason that it got out of control of this committee is because this committee voted no on the bill. And this committee, you know, we had I have done my best to be assured that if we pass out the bill and if it's just these two things, we'll see where it goes on other things. But it was just these two things that the committee process will be abiding by us. I just I take all those points and I think it was well said. I just want to say, in contrast to what I said a few minutes ago, my hope is very much to vote for what we do today and then to defend it on the Senate floor and all the way through the process, i.e. defend it from things being added to. So as a member of this committee, I want to I want to reach agreement and then I want to protect that agreement. And I would certainly vote to pull this bill by amending it and like the bill. But I don't have confidence in the system anymore. I do what happened on the floor of the house last year. Some of those things that came up there, if it had been done in committee, I think there could have been some meeting in the minds with all the groups. If it had been done in the committee, we wouldn't be in any of these positions today. Therefore, I don't trust the system anymore. Can I proceed? That's a major statement by a long term Senator Representative Halis. I respect you deeply and as Vice Chair, I understand where you're coming from. I'm trying to add to the bill so you may wish to vote for certain things that go into the bill and then vote against the bill as it is. That was my procedural question. We're not voting on the bill. We're voting on where to add the provisions of that 72 to a committee bill, which may have three votes, but if it doesn't have three votes, it won't go. But assuming it gets three votes or four or five votes, then it would be a committee bill. So we're not voting on this bill, just per se, we're voting to put this as part of the committee bill. I move that as amended, 72 as amended be put to be approved to put into whatever we come up with. Is there any further discussion on that? Anybody in the audience who likes would like to comment on that. All right, Peggy, could you call the roll on this? Senator White? Yes. Senator Brewer? Yes. Senator Benny? Yes. Senator Nica? Yes. Senator Sears? Yes. Two down. That brings us to S22. Are you due? Are you due to 2 and 13? Later. Oh, okay. There's more. Okay. I, as I said, my comments from last year when I go to no on the bill as described, part of the defense for Max Mission. I'd like to read those comments again. I'm going to make a motion. But I said, Mr. President, it was unfortunate that I forced to vote no on a bill that I reported in response to. When I've looked at a firearm restrictions, I've been guided by one principle. Will the proposed legislation keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who should not possess them? However, when law enforcement officers, our Attorney General and our state's attorneys tell us that something's unenforceable, we should listen. Yes, most homeowners are law-abiding and will follow the law. So I asked who is this legislation designed for, to impact this, particularly to the magazine restrictions. Law-abiding citizens or the criminal element and deranged individuals will not abide by the laws. For that reason, I cannot support the section to deal with the magazines. So that was my statement back then. And I've tried to remain true to that idea that Vermont's problem with firearms is suicide. You know, every report that I've received, everything I've looked at says that 90% of the firearm related deaths in Vermont might be 89%. As a result of suicide, the others are mainly domestic violence related. So there's been two areas that we as a committee have tried to deal with over the years. Someone said during the debate on a bill, one family, one of the witnesses that are public hearing said one family's tragedy should not set policy for everyone. I absolutely agree with that. The tragedy that the black family suffered in losing their son is something that no parents should ever have to go through. But that should not guide our decision here. It should guide our decision or facts. And the facts that I looked at, when I looked at different studies, said of suicides, 24% of the survivors of suicide in the Houston study, 24% said that their decision was made in less than five minutes. 24% said five to 19 minutes, 23% said 20 minutes to one hour. And 16% said two to eight hours, 13% said one or more days. I looked at that factors. And I looked at actually, unfortunately, came from a firearm deal. But he said 48 hour waiting period, which is also not he talked about the secure storage and I would put that in a category of magazines, unenforceable law. When we already have laws, I appreciate that you decided to drop the secure storage part. But I would argue that's the same as magazines, unenforceable.  And anyway, he said that this is also not necessarily a severe severely impact my my and every other gun dealers ability to conduct business. This is the key phrase and unfortunately said, many of our sales are impulse buys. And of course, we do have the sale of a specifically stocked firearm, our customers are from out of town 48 hour waiting period pretty much puts an end to the impulse buy. So I, you know, I realized he was trying to tell me not to vote for the bill. But same talk and he's saying that many of his sales are impulse buys. Then he then we had Rebecca Bell's testimony, which struck me particularly suicide and suicidal is complex. What experts know about suicide that runs counterintuitive to what the general public believes to be true.  Many people who died suicide have not had a prior attempt. The outcome of suicide death is most strongly predicated on the lethality of the method used not on history, depression or other mental illness. The out lethality of method is determined by inherent deadliness, accessibility, ease of use and ability to abort, abort mind attempt. Choice of fire and does not leave room for the regret and more that I see in my patients who've chosen other methods and survived. One study looked at 30 people who survived self conflicted gunshot wounds and more than half reported having suicidal thoughts for less than 24 hours. More than half had experienced interpersonal conflict within the 24 hours before the attempt. None had written suicide notes. So I would argue that number one, I would propose that we amend S22 for the purposes of our bill to a waiting period of up to 24 of 24 hours and limit it to the sale of handgun. The one day waiting period and limit it to the sale of handgun. The reasons for that, in my opinion, are discussed in my proposal. The reasons are several. One is that most often the person in a suicide attempt would use a handgun not a rifle. I realize some famous people have used rifles like Ernest Hemingway, but that's somewhat odd. And I don't think that 48 hours, I think, I don't sure that 48 hours does anything that 24 wouldn't do. If it's an impulse buy, then I'm willing to compromise and go to that level if there's two other votes to do that here. I'm not willing to go with 48 hours. I'm not willing to go to all firearms. And part of the reason I'm doing that is again, as I said earlier to have some control over this process. I lost complete control of the process last time. For me to go and I've done two things that would probably upset the firearms community, my friends, and the Federation of Sportsman Clubs and other groups in my career. One was introducing the so-called petroleum risk protection order bill at this particular time. I've always been a strong supporter of folks. So with that said, and I realize this will anger many of my constituents, I also have a lot of constituents who've asked me to vote for S-72 and S-22, a lot of them. And I bet a lot of them asked me to vote no one, too. So I think this is in the spirit of what we do around here is called compromise. And if I can get the shooting contest back, I will call Dr. Besartage Bill, I'm going to move a little bit on waiting periods. I do think that they will ultimately help, I mean, automatically, help with our problem of suicides. And also to some extent, homicides, because some of the homicides occurred in a very quick manner without a lot of thought because you're upset with yourself. Most homicides in Vermont are done by people who know each other and they're usually domestic violence related, as I said earlier, a lot of them are impulses by. That's my proposal. I realize it's not going to be popular with many people. It might not be popular with anyone because those who wanted a 48 hour waiting period might not be happy with it, but it's called compromise. And if I could speak to what I just said, first of all, I greatly appreciate the willingness to be flexible and try to reach compromise. And I feel the same way. These are very tough issues. I represent a lot of people who have pressed me very hard to address suicide by firearm, which is a real problem in Vermont, compared to other states. So personally, I wrote the bill with 48 hours because I believe that would be more effective. I wrote it with all firearms because I believe it would be more effective. But if the committee can land on one day handguns, I do believe that would be an appropriate response to what's going on in terms of what some people have called the quiet epidemic of suicide by firearms. So I can vote for them and I appreciate the chair's willingness to try to reach compromise. So that was going to be my question was why was 48 hours chosen to begin with? Because I think the house bill is 72 hours. And there were different time periods. So I just was curious. Honestly, the issues usually usually talked about in terms of one day, two days or three days. And I picked two days because it seemed to me to be a reasonable stretch for both of those sides of the argument. I think if I understand the chair's thinking too, is there any greater benefit with the second day? You gave a statistic that put place things within a 24 hour period for the most part. Again, I will have to answer to people who wanted more than that. We'll all have to answer people on both sides have to answer people that want less. That's what we do, right? I know you feel like it came out of that field. I'm giving a lot of thought to this. No, no, I understand it came out of the field. I'm trying to struggle with it. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to reach compromise. That is very important. I have a couple of concerns. We have the constitutional provision. Since we have the right to stop defense. And the very same handgun that you're talking about that may be a direct threat in suicide situations. I don't think the science has settled on that question yet, because we've received statistics from both sides that lead me to believe we could at least have a study to determine whether that's a factual problem in Vermont. And we don't have that study here in Vermont to determine that we have one anecdotal situation that led us to have this conversation to begin with. While I am very sympathetic to those folks, I also have two close friends who committed suicide with handguns. The bottom line is that very same device is also the device most used as I understand it in self defense purposes, which is what we are sworn to be paying close attention to in our Constitution. The waiting period, if it were all guns, would have in my eyes a direct impact on the economic incentive that we have for gun show purposes. So I'm glad you're moving in the direction you are. But I'm also now firmly in the camp of this is yet another step. I wasn't there last year. Now I am because of what went on last year. And I think we heard very clearly from Clay Lampson the other day that this was another step in a group that is growing. And that's the concern that I have is that we are taking yet another step on that slope. I wish I could wave a magic wand and have a study as opposed to leaving right into the conclusion that we have a problem. We are essentially abandoning those victims, advocates who came to us last year and beg and pleaded that the most dangerous time in a domestic abuse victims life is those two to five days immediately after a breakup. And now we are placing an impediment in the way of somebody who would choose. I wouldn't recommend it. But if they chose to use this particular device for self defense purposes and didn't have one, that would be the most critical time for them to get it would be in the first two days, or one day of a breakup. So I'm really struggling with this because I want to understand how you're reaching for compromise and I appreciate that. I think I still come back to the same place I was before. I don't feel as if there's adequate evidence in front of me. That would support the idea. And let me say further that the reason for that is the very limited evidence we have in front of us now. It became very clear to me during that conversation with the blacks that in looking back retroactively, they could establish a fairly long period of time, more than the 24 hours that we're suggesting here, in which this individual had formulated the desire and the intent to commit suicide. I know that in the case of my two personal friends, one of whom some of you may know, who belong to a coffee clutch that I attend every week. We noticed that he hadn't been attending for a couple of weeks. We knew that he had lost his wife and that he was depressed. But he didn't wake up one day and decide to go out and buy a handgun. He had guns. That was a lifelong thing for him. In the case of my other friend, a guy that I rode motorcycles with halfway around the North American continent. We clearly understood that he had been depressed for a very long period of time. In his case to he had guns throughout his entire life. So throw one other thing in here. Philip, I think you hit the nail on the head. And you gave us that anecdote about your daughter. She came home happy, go lucky. And 20 minutes came back downstairs because she had not been invited to something she saw her friends on Facebook had been invited to. I personally have come away from Facebook, many times thoroughly depressed about what we are called, what we can't do because we're not smart enough, or the things that we do and we get accused of being elitists. And it literally got to the point where I just said to Helen, I got to get off this thing because it's literally just too depressing. And the odd part of it is Andrew Black was exactly in that situation. And between the texts and the Facebook posts, he clearly was sending out all the signals that were necessary. What a waiting period have helped him. None of us know we can't ask you. The odd part of this entire conversation is in a couple of days, we're all going to be talking about women's right to choose. And I know this may sound at first blush as if it's coming out of left field. But the fundamental right of an individual to control their bodies and make decisions about their bodies is something I'm very in tune to. And as crazy as this may sound, if I decide to commit suicide, what right does the state of Vermont have to try to intercede? Because somebody around this table feels well, that's tragic. I'm struggling with this. And I come back to saying, I understand you're reaching compromise. I just don't think unless I can get some evidence in front of me that says, we have a problem in Vermont.  And nobody saw that coming. The truth, I really appreciate it. I'm with you 99% of the way. I want to make clear that my evolution on this is the result of what I said last year, that anything that I can do as chair of this committee to reduce what I consider Vermont's gun problem, which is the suicide by firearm, I'm going to do. And I remain true to that. And I became convinced during the testimony, both for and against this bill, that this minor step would be able to help reduce, be able to reduce suicide based upon evidence from a number of people. And I read some of that evidence this morning, that led me to that conclusion. It wasn't I hear exactly where you're at. And I didn't come to that on sky. I didn't come to this until two days ago. When it came, when it, you know, I finally received enough information for me to say, I could support this limited step. Because I believe, and I can defend it to my constituents, I can defend it to the Senate, because I believe this will help. Well, it's going to solve it now. And I'm not sure that this bill wasn't in the drafting stage before black suicide. Yeah, the waiting period concept has been around for Yeah, so I'm not sure that I understand that the obituary led much of the discussion here, and has opened up. But the issue of suicide by handgun 90% 89%, according to a VPR study, where the result of firearms over a five year period. So I think that I don't know that that the decision was made within 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours or 10 days, California has 10 day waiting period, which I would certainly consider if we did that in Vermont would probably be unconstitutional based on 16. I agree with you on that point. Let me say first, I am not trying to convince you to change your mind about the decision you've reached based on the evidence you've seen. I come to the point where I say, we have a speculative bill that might reduce suicides. And that's the hope. But it comes at the expense of others we have seen fit to try to protect with legislation that we all work very hard on. And actually got a vote out of the Senate, as well as the administration and the House, I'm sorry, because we believe the evidence that we were hearing. So we had factual evidence in front of us that demonstrated that period of time was critical for those people that needed to protect themselves. Now we are using our desire to try to correct what is admittedly a problem with suicide. In my eyes, effectively throwing those people into the bus. Or we think that's why I'm the authority that I work that I put into it. Let me say one other thing. I have had a lot of emails from folks who are very well intentioned, who have been telling me that guns are the most lethal form of suicide and you don't generally come back. Well, I absolutely agree with that. But I'm not sure I can reach the point where I say my oath to my constitution, at least I view it, tells me that I have to eliminate that from the equation.  And I just don't believe a happy go lucky person on one day wakes up in the morning and says I'm going out there to buy a gun to kill myself. I absolutely believe after 30, almost 36 years of criminal law that individuals don't make those kinds of decisions on the impulse of 24 hour situation. I guess I'll leave it at that. I just I mean, I think we keep hearing the statistics about suicide. Very sad.  And even though we allow people to commit suicide via death with dignity or whatever we call it, now we allow them to do it. And just because someone chooses a different method, doesn't mean that that's not their choice to do. And it certainly doesn't. I don't mean that for anything to do with the blacks. But I know older men, several of them who shot themselves when they were in the last stage of cancer. And they're in the mix of those numbers. I don't know how many there are over here, but I personally know three men that did that. So you know, it's it's hard, suicides are terrible for everybody that's alive. Take a break, Senator White. So I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. Go back and forth and back and forth. I do. I do believe that at times, suicide is not it is impulsive. And I one of my best friend son, who was also one of my best friends, he was 24, and he was the best friend of my son. What I saw him in the morning. And he was really happy. He was really was a happy kid. He got he went out that night and he had he was slippery and he wrecked his mom's new car and he was really bummed out about that. And he thought she was gonna yell at him. And he went to his very favorite place on earth, which is the top of the mountain right near my house. And it was a beautiful sunlight, January night. Moon was out. And there's a little cabin up there on the top of the hill. And there was a rope hanging there. And he hung himself. He, I know that he had not thought about that before he he showed no signs to anybody at all. He he was planning he had just gotten a lot of a bunch of new jobs, all kinds of things. So I don't I think there are impulsive suicides. And, and I do think that if somebody is in that situation, or they are long term, they think about it for a long time, I'm not sure we have a right to tell them that we know best for them. But for the for the person who where it is an impulse and they are just so bummed out by whatever it is in this case, it was because he wrecked his mom's new car. And for some reason, that moonlit night upon that hill was he thought this was the answer. So I do think that in those cases, we if it's by if we have short waiting period, it might, I believe that if an owl had hooded, right, then, that he would have been jolted out of that. But I will never know that. I have found a lot about the victim issue. And I think that one of the things that, because I agreed with you on that for a long time. And I think that one of the things we heard was that if there is a weapon in the house, regardless of who owns it, that if the perpetrator comes back, they're more likely to, to shoot the victim. If there's a gun in there. So just the fact of the victim going out and getting the gun for self protection may may actually be a bad thing, because there's now a weapon in there that the perpetrator can use. So I still have mixed feelings about it. But I guess, and I know I'm going to make everybody angry here, I'm going to make the people that want a longer waiting period angry. And I'm going to make the people who don't want any waiting period. But in the spirit of compromise, I will support the chair. Go. I appreciate Joe's thinking about victims of sexual violence. I just want to point out he has a long history of working in the interests of that community. I just wanted to say we did get testimony mailed to us from the network against domestic and sexual violence, which is I think of as the premier group representing survivors. They say contrary to common misperceptions, access to firearms does not increase victim safety. In fact, proximity to firearms increases the risk of lethality for victims of domestic violence. Firearms are rarely used for self defense and violent crimes. And they go on to say domestic violence related homicides forever changed the lives of surviving family members and the communities in which they occur. S 22 is one way to reduce the likelihood of impulsive acts of devastating violence. We thank the committee for your consideration. Why don't we do why just wanted to ask a question about S 22. We are looking only at the waiting period. We have decided to drop the safe storage. I believe that the committee was going to say that. Okay, motion that we dropped that. But I think that the eye opener for all of us is that we need to educate the public about it. If you leave, whether it's a bottle of Jack Daniels, a firearm loaded or you know, drain out for a young child to get that's a crime in Vermont. If you drive drunk with it for drug with a kid in Vermont, that's a crime because you have that those two laws. So I find a state storage act. Not only enforce in an enforceable, but we already have laws in the book that would cover somebody being negligent with a child. There's a number of case laws. The case in I believe it was in Straton where the out of state family owned a condo decided to have a celebration for their son's graduation from some school and had this huge cake party at the condo and then they were to be negligent not for some damages, but also from the negligent because of the underage they were serving underage kids. So I think that I honestly can say I believe that's unnecessary. So I think that was the committee and whoever reports this bill might mention that the committee came to that conclusion. I think that would be at least unanimous. I think Yeah, I came in and I apologize for coming in late, but I sure that was I thought I heard that we're going to take a break and come back vote on S117 give Eric a chance to to draft some language and then try to go on 17 is the medical marijuana bill. And then while we had we didn't have the language, I was working on some language. And then we'll try to finish up this by 1130. Yes, I was just going to ask you so is the for now, at least for the next version to look at the committee bill put S22 as as you proposed to amendment right within that package. Yeah, my safe storage and safe 24 right right minus the safe storage and the S72 and S1. Yeah. And then we'll see what we do. Two and 13. Sounds good. Thanks. So you want to hear something very interesting. Do you know where the cannabis bill went in the house? Come in operations. Make sense. All I know is the definition of jack. It is not and I what I checked those that you use the term hand gun already without defining it in the large in the magazine section. Last year's magazine. Yeah, exactly. Oh, but where's my folder? Right here. Oh, it's underneath. So for the record, Michelle Childs Office of Legislative Council, and we're taking up amendment to S17, you have to have a copy of your amendment draft 1.2 dated the 14th at 615 p.m. It's just it's looks like this. It's adding a section 8. Starts out with the US. Yeah, exactly. And so the only amendment that you have to this is really this adding this new section in the room, but we see it comes before you and the cannabinoid. Yeah, the cannabinoid tweak. And so what it was is that in previous what right in previous legislation, but I just want to let me just explain to you what I how I did this. No, don't explain. We're all things. Okay, but can I just tell you what I'm that I'm I do you just want to let you know what it's doing. Not substantively, but just that what it is is that when you had added this language before previous legislation, it was session law. And and and so rather than amending the session law so that you can find it in the future, I codified it. So just so you know, that's why it's underlined. And so it's now going to be in statute in the medical so you can find it. Okay, that's all just want to let you know that. Okay, sorry. Thanks. Okay. That's it. Okay. Unstoppable. Okay. Okay. So I move that we amend the bill amend the bill with draft by putting draft 1.2 into the bill. new section eight. Yeah, section eight. Senator whites move that we add new section eight and nine to cover the description drug containing those and repeal section nine repeals the other session. Yep. Okay. Any discussion? Thank you. Please send it away. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We didn't actually call it an affiliate. No. Okay. So now I know that the report favorably s 117 hasn't been. Go ahead. I'm joining us. Go ahead. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. You always do. I know I'm so lucky. Well, no, I mean, no, I don't say you've got the report down. I know. I've done it 20 times. Sorry. Wait, let me know if I can help you. All right. So let's until Eric gets back. Can we move to the wire arms and other s two s. Yeah, now I got. I'll be easier to find it on my back. My file s two. Oh, by Senator Rogers. Oh, I'm actually using my iPad because I can't find it in mine. I mean, as introduced, okay, this proposal is to limit large capacity of ammunition being played team devices to be transferred from one immediate family member to another by a prop by a properly executed bill. And so it takes that law regarding a large capacity ammunition devices. It will allow you to transfer from one immediate family member. Immediate family member has the same meaning as in section 401 nine of this fight. And that is the step grandfather, step grand, great grandchildren. It's a sir, I support this. Okay. I would understanding that discussion can follow. I would need that we add it to the committee. Um, did you want to add the broken one? Well, no, I wanted to ask me did I want to? Oh, okay. Yeah, we need Eric is still typing. Can you handle us? Sure. So we would add to s two, which is the this bill. To change the definition of immediate family member so that your mother without him, well, we have to be in the ones. I don't know whether that's what degree of content would in your whatever was determined when we used the definition. Now, what's the reference to it? This seems to be a third of what degree of content 13 49, 4019. So, Joe, are you talking about all in laws, like if you marry into a family with for me? No, I understand. You've got to be some break. Yeah, somewhere. When I'm just trying to accomplish is my simple situation where my father, when my brother walking into his father's, that makes a lot more sense to me, the great step grand child, which is so I don't know how you word that parents in law and siblings in law. Does that sound usable? You want anybody to just, sorry, so for the for the through marriage would just be but it would apply to everybody who would have been there for marriage. We have that right here. The family member meet the spouse, parent, step parent child, step child, sibling, step sibling, grandparent, step parent, grandchild, step grandchild, grandparent, step great grandparent, great grandchild, step great grandchild. So you would add to that. Are you saying that you would amend this definition to everything? So it will cover that's 13 to and step sibling. Just parents and law and siblings and law parents and law and siblings and law. They ever came up with a great grandchild and step grandchild. I suspect they came up with it the same way. Somebody had a step grand, great grandchild that they wanted to be able to. Yeah, that's I suspect that. So she tells me to step grand, great grandchild would not be able to hold much less pickup. You never know. You're still the grandchild. My cousin's daughter. Mary is really young. She's got about my cousin has. I don't know how many great great grandchild. Quite a few. If you do this, then that would cover in S32. So or S13, excuse me. So for your information, I have classmates of mine who have great grandchild. But we're talking about step well, but they could still be the same age as your step could be older than you are. Okay, that's there enough to do that. Okay, so step. Um, look at S13, which is the other Roger bill. It allows for to transfer one immediate family member to another immediate family member of a large capacity of you ammunition device, luckily possessed on a poor the effective date of this section. And then he has used in the subsection of media family members. They'll have the same meaning. So you would be putting this into the bell tone. And there's anybody have a problem with the S13, which is the transfer from one immediate family member to another capacity. The Grandfather. The Grandfather magazine, not the right. While we're waiting for her to come back, I think I should explain why this. I'm asking for this to the folks who are not understanding that Thanksgiving. I never owned a weapon before, but on Thanksgiving, my brother-in-law showed up and he wanted to give to me the antique rifle that his father owned and we were standing in the garage next to my wife and I had to tell him like it's Thanksgiving, we're never going to be able to go to find a firearm deal. And it's going to be able to do a background check on me right now. So I can't accept this weapon from you, but you can't hand it to my wife who in turn can't hand it to me. And that's why we're having this conversation. That's what happened. Now I'm going to crowd a little bit. But it was given to you by your wife, my wife, my brother-in-law. You wouldn't have been illegal if you had a brother-in-law. That's right. Thank goodness for your wife. It was a great conversation. Luckily, by that time, having enough drinks, we had a good chuckle out of it. That's the way it was. So you want to add parent-law and sibling-in-law to this. And what is this going on? Whatever. It's a committee bill that Eric's working on. Okay. So I just have a language here. It's easy. And he can just, I'll just email it to him. Yeah, you can drop it into the bill. So it's S, but it's the contents of S2 and S13 of the other sections of it. We're doing three things. And it's a committee bill. Yeah. And it's a committee bill. And we're doing three things. One is adding the ability to, through will, to transfer the large ammunition slices, and through transfer. So a slightly expanded group of families. That's right. It's a slightly expanded group of families. Huh? Well, again, I can't emphasize enough is, if we get it through the Senate, and largely the fact that it's going to be written in, we control it, but at the end, we don't. We didn't control it last night. I mean, you know, the government may have a voice here. I'm sure it does. Constitutionally speaking. Constitutionally speaking. If it ought to be proud of the fact that we now have a new piece of vocabulary in the Senate. Yeah. Tell each other that they're going to house it when they get it. That's your feeling. Well, it actually came up in appropriations yesterday. It came up in our committee, too, wasn't it? Yeah, it was getting housed. Getting housed. Yeah. We used that in the box the other day. This is our last bill. This is it. This is it. This is it. Oh, that's not Eric. No, it's not. You'll be back. Next week, we'll start working with our students. And on Friday, we scheduled the S-99. Senator White needs to give some names, but thank you. I'm comfortable with that. From the alimony bill regarding the Montgomery laws that we've tried to get the House to deal with, aren't you? In their miscellaneous bill, I think, we have a section on alimony laws which makes this the main S-99 domain. Before we send them the bill, we should think about it. I've never been involved in this. I'll stay here. Well, that was the trend where I said, what's an alimony? This is always about expulsion. I know you had an expulsion. This is expulsion. It's not child support or custody or anything else. It's expulsion. Our laws are dramatic. Well, there's been two changes. One is the Trump Act. Where that changed the deductibility of alimony payments. So that changed what should be the guidelines. And the number two is that Vermont is way behind other states. Massachusetts did it. We had a lot of testimony last year or the year before on what Massachusetts has done to inform its alimony laws. There's a little testimony from some pretty people who are basically encouraged by the requirements of the alimony law. And they had to go into their retirement and settlement. So we may send it out as S-99. We get those and let them contemplate it over the summer and get pressure on them. Or we can put it as part of another bill. You know, thinking about that, they may not deal with it. Yeah, I would have received the best once we hear from people. Well, we can decide once we decide what we want to do. But I think it's been a lot of fight about it, particularly in the House, to try to amend the alimony for the expulsion. And by the courts. By the courts. We don't want to change anything. But they want to control it. Well, because their stories are just horrendous. And it's both men and women. But now the courts are using some of those guidelines out there, and that's working for them. They're using the guidelines, but they're still not looking at things like permanent alimony and things like that. That is still in our statute. Well, that exists. There needs to be discretion for the court to look at the whole circuit of stance and do what they feel is best after hearing everything. The guidelines have helped. The guidelines have helped some. So that's for Friday? I need to call. Yeah. Yeah, I'm hanging up.  I know. You have Prince Lemon's contact? Yeah. Just run him now and have him. He'll know that we'll call. Prince Lemon. Yeah. So ask him for us? Yeah. And there is a head of the group, and he'll probably have him figure out who should test with us. Two or three people. I was going to say, how many do you have? Yeah. No, just two or three. They'll bring a lot in, but only two or three to test. Yeah, because we don't have all that much time. Yeah. But we've been through the issue. Senator, can you find your guitar right now? We also may take up that 74 at some point next week. What's 70? My guitar. That was the bill that, the debt collection that, Oh, yeah. Wendy Morgan said everybody is in favor of the bill opposition. And then I put it on the schedule and opposition to know as quickly as the schedule. So, Joe, have you seen the bill? I meant to bring it in the, one that would prohibit racial profile, which I believe we already do. Yeah. But it's, I'm not sure why we need another bill on it. And it would change the Human Rights Commission. Yeah, it is. I believe it came in here. I think it's 145. No, we just got it. Was that in reference to the House Bill? Maybe we got a letter about that statement. No. That's good. That's not one of them. I don't think. They're about to celebrate their third anniversary. Well, there's a, we just got it yesterday. Okay. It changes the main commission. Oh yeah. This is a large capacity. Oh, I think it's 155. This one is the one that allows the state law enforcement officer. Oh yeah. This is the law enforcement officer. We probably added this as part of that. I was going to say we should put that in. You want to read it before you put it in? I did. I read it the other day. So we, an exemption to the large capacity is a law enforcement. But it doesn't allow an out of state law enforcement, for example, if you're in St. John'sburg, and you would have somebody put your name to come over if you're in Browbro. It doesn't allow them to bring in to, which doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense. Law enforcement is law enforcement. And we use on board, community to use out of state agreements, but we can't. Well, we should add this. We should add this to Eric's bill. The whole thing? Yep. What? It's just one section on the back. I thought it should have come to go up, because it's a four. Yeah. Well, first off, this is from Monday, and I'll send it to you. It's an executive. I know. And why would the speaker, is it House Bill? No, it's Senate Bill. He's got a whole bunch of odd bills like that. Anyway, why don't you send it to us and we'll take it up when we do the boards and commissions. I wonder if it's just, why don't you make sure it's not. It's working perfectly fine. I don't know where it came from. Okay. Should I bring the bill up and do it on board today? Sure. And then they've got the bill? Yeah. That's the only thing I can say. I think it actually works pretty well. No, no. I thought we already had bills. Laws against racial profiling. I think we do. Well, this creates a new law, a new commission, and it finds a police officer who, who uses, who is found to have used racial profiling. And to be honest, we all have biases, and we all, okay, finds them something like $500 and puts them in jail for two years or something. It makes it a, okay, that's going in. Thank you. Thank you. You want files? What would you do with it again? Yeah. Is somebody going to be in the other one? No, we're, even that's going away. Did you know that the Constitution actually mentions suicide? No, it's a suicide. It says that the states of such persons has made, destroyed their own lives, shall not for that offense be forfeited, but shall descend or ascend in the same manner, as if such persons had died in a natural way. Oh, in terms of inheritance. Uh-huh. So in 1776, that's when that was put. So in a way, it's protecting the, the rights of someone. Right. Or the order of actually protecting the family. It's protecting them. Yeah. And it also says that if you're punished to hard labor, that all persons at proper times ought to be permitted to see them at their labor. So that's a great way to get a powerful, gentlemen's view. Yeah, working on that. It's a punishment at hard labor and a way you can do it, and that if you do punish somebody by hard labor, it says, and all persons at proper times ought to be permitted to see them at their labor. To shame them. To shame them. Thank you for your hard work. Yes, absolutely. Do you have a bill? We certainly do. We have a brand new committee bill. Okay. And, uh... Also thanks, Michelle, for her work on the bill. Yes, thanks. She wasn't there. I couldn't thank her in person when I walked in the door, but she was emailing me other changes that the committee was deciding on, so I appreciate that. I have two registrations. And I have two registrations. Peggy, I have one. Just Peggy, I have one. Yes, I have one. Yes, thank you. I'll post it. Anybody else want one? There's two of them right here. I'll have one. Thank you. Okay. Eric, you want to walk us through this? Yes. So, uh, as I mentioned, this is a brand new bill, a new committee bill from the Senate Committee on Judiciary relating to firearms. It's a combination of some of the people who are looking at this morning, as well as a couple of new provisions that are added. Because it has not been approved or edited yet, I know for a fact that there will be typos in there. I'll see what immediately is in line five. So, you know, please do an order, as we go through, but also know that it hasn't been approved or edited yet, so it wouldn't be unusual to say something. Appreciate your argument. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Senator. But as we were discussing earlier, we also had a chance to talk with John Boomer about this, and voting it out today is going to be fine, because it doesn't necessarily have to be approved or edited by the end of the day today. It's going to be fine to be introduced on Tuesday. Right. Well, the House decides to technically not take it up because of a little detail. I'm sure we're going to be impressed with it. I actually let people know that this might not make it technically unpressive. Right. So should we look at what the different provisions are within the new committee bill? So the first one has to do with the large capacity ammunition feeding devices. There are a couple of different pieces in here. You'll see, though, that the first two sections are not actually changed at all. I only put them in there because I think Senator Baruth had mentioned earlier. It was helpful to sort of understand the lay of the land a little bit to what's being amended. So you see the first subsection A is just the prohibition that you passed last year, why aren't we speaking? The large capacity ammunition feeding devices are prohibited. Subsection C is the grandfathering provision. Everybody remember that from last year? So if you possessed one, honor before the effective date of that section, which was April 11th, 2018. That was the day the governor signed it. So if you possessed an honor before that date, then you can continue to possess it. You're not prohibited by any means. But you could also buy them up until October 1st. That's right. There was a provision in there that allowed dealers to sell their existing inventory until February 1st. So that's the way the existing statute works as well. There are these exceptions in the existing law that you passed last year, and the two provisions that you see on page two both modify these existing exceptions a little bit. So one of the exceptions, and this is from the first one you see in line 7 to 15, that was, I think it was S-155 that was introduced by Senator Rogers and I think Senator Parent as well. So that provision is now here in the committee bill. And that basically involves, you see there was an existing exception last year so that if the device was transferred to or possessed by a law enforcement officer for legitimate law enforcement purposes, well, there was an exception for that. So I think the situation came up, and that's what you see addressed in line 11 to 15 is what about situations where an out-of-state law enforcement officer has been called to assist a Vermont law enforcement officer in state. And so this addresses that situation and adds that to the exception so that if that circumstance unfolds that an out-of-state law enforcement officer is called into Vermont for legitimate law enforcement purposes, then that possession is also exempted. Okay, yep. Does that make sense? Yep. We all approve that while you were while Michelle was on the board. Yeah, we all approve that. Number two, I have this cup. Do you want to go to a little lii? Which was S1? Yes, right. Yes, so this was S1. You see the bottom-up cage too. This is the shooting competition issue. Remember that? Organized. Yes, organized. Thank you. So you see that on line 18 the word established has changed to organized. So that, again, this is an exception that these devices aren't prohibited. Remember they're transported, rather, by a resident of another state into Vermont for purposes of what was an established shooting competition and after some testimony this morning that's been changed to organized shooting competition. So that's a slight change to the existing one. They've also added that that number applies only to out-of-state residents, right? Transported to an out-of-state resident transports the device into Vermont. There was discussion this morning about, well, what about a Vermont resident? Could they use one of these shooting competitions? And that's what subdivision little ii, so that Roman numeral two there addresses. The line's 20-21. Can that be October 1st? October 30th? Because it was legal to pronounce the... No, possession. Possession, though. The grandfathering of the possession happened on April 11th. So that's true that the dealers could sell their inventory by October 1st. The reason I'm cognizant of that is that the charges against Max Mission Bennington are that he... The Bennington police investigated determined he had purchased the high-capacity magazines before October 1st. And they felt that that was not a violation of the law, but a violation of the law that the attorney general in further investigation found that he bought some in December in New Hampshire and not made that a violation of the law. So I'm just curious if we should change the April 11th date to September 29th or something like that. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong here, don't we use April 11th all the way through? I don't think other than... Because they purchased them, a Vermont resident purchased them in the interim. Or were given them, and that was legal until October 1st. And that's when the new law took effect. I don't think that the...  You do have that provision. You have C2. Provided it was... Unfortunately, C2's not in there. But... The prohibition on possession, transfer, sale, and purchase of large capacity... I mean, animation feed devices, not applied to a device lawfully possessed by a dealer prior to April 11th, 2018, and transferred on or before October 1st. Well, it's always... Yeah, but... So you should apply it by October 1st. I mean, did the bank and police then make a mistake? Or is the confusion with the law that we should correct? I mean, we can pass this out and then do an amendment to correct that, but could you research that on Monday and Tuesday? Yeah, definitely. Because I really want to get this piece right, and I don't think we have it right. Or at the very least, we have confusion if the Bennington police investigated the case and believed that there was no violation of the law in the States. I believe that the state's attorney agreed with the Bennington police on this case. That's the only case I know of where this has come to play. Right, because it says it could be transferred by the dealer before October 1st. Right. So it has to be transferred to somebody. Right. But they can sell it to honest dealers. Let's just ask Eric to research it. Leave the April 11th date there. April 11th date. Yep. But with the idea that we may need to amend it on the floor after Eric has researched it, because obviously one way there needs to be clarified whether or not somebody violated the law. And it's the only case I know of where the charges have been brought on this. Yeah, that makes sense. You might check with Erica Mathijon on the Bennington case, and how they concluded that the purchase was legal. Yeah, Joe. I don't know. I would have put a period right after there weren't competition on line 20. This is not about whether or not they purchased something at a given point in time. The question is whether they are at a shooting competition and they're in possession of it. I don't understand why we have that last line in there. Well, that was my objection. If we don't have that in there, we're not talking about grandfather weapons. We'd be talking about other possibilities. So I thought we had agreement to deal with this. It was lawfully possessed by somebody, not necessarily by the participant, I think. So the owner of the shooting contest could have lawfully possessed it and let, or John Rogers could lawfully have possessed it and let Sears use it. My understanding of the nature of the bill of request was that shooting competitions could be held and Vermonters would not be at a disadvantage. Right, I think they're okay. They're going to have to borrow it or something. Well, that's another part of the problem. If you go to a shooting range and John Rogers is there with his high capacity magazine, you're on your own one. You can borrow his. You can borrow his, but it's he that had possession of it legally prior to the dig. Yes. Dick did not. Technically, that's a transfer of it in time. No, but this legalizes the ability, as long as the magazine was lawfully possessed on her before that date, you can, if you're at a shooting competition, let somebody use it. Okay, let's go ahead. Let's let Eric research this. I think we know what we want. Mr. Chair, I took your point on the day. You say that.  No, I'm not. Okay. I'm supportive of your little I.I. Yes. My only question is the date. I see that. That's the only question I'm asking. I was speaking to George. No, I think. Can I just quickly make another observation? Line 19. If the device is lawfully possessed under Vermont law or the laws of another state, I think would resolve the question. Yeah. All right, Dr. We don't need that because that's what it says now. But you're technically bringing in a date there which suggests somebody can investigate whether or not on the scene. I'm struggling with why that line. But adding under Vermont law wouldn't change that. It would still correct my wrong error. Under Vermont law, which we are amending in little I.I., we're still talking about what's legal under Vermont's law. And then we're making a slight exception. So adding the words under Vermont law would just restate what's already obvious which is that this is Vermont law. Yes. Okay. Can we move on? Section two. Section two is also, I think, based on what I heard from Michelle, something that the committee discussed a short while ago while I was upstairs was redrafting this has to do with when a background check is required and remember there's an exemption for transfers between family members. And it's adding in line seven, two different types of family relationships to the list of family relationships. This would allow Joe's brother to get from the dozen directly rather than going through this later. Yes, exactly. Section three. Section three is the waiting period. You'll see now that it's handgun transfers. It does not apply to all firearms and it's a 24-hour waiting period. So the prohibition is on transferring a handgun to another person until 24 hours after the completion of the background check required by either federal law or state law. So once the background check is complete there's a 24-hour waiting period. There's a $500 misdemeanor. You see in lines 15 through 17. And again, just sort of clarification but subsection C makes it doubly clear that the section does not apply to a handgun transfer. It does not require a background check. Again, that's right. It builds back up to immediate families. Exactly. I think you've remembered it's a transfer entity or handing it to your friend because transfer requires a transfer of ownership to family members. So those things would not require a background check and therefore would not require a waiting period either. Okay. Any questions? Section four is the ERPO, the Emergency Risk Protection Order provision. This is really unchanged from what you saw this morning. Again, this is the provision over on page four that permits a healthcare provider to provide information to a law enforcement officer when they think this person causes an extreme risk of harm and to do that without violating HIPAA. That's basically the gist of what's going on there. Section five is the reporting. Also unchanged from what we saw this morning. This is the court administrator and the agency of human services reporting to the Judiciary Committees on data regarding these ERPO orders, as well as follow-up data on their renewal and whether the person is charged with violating them. And then human services is also supposed to report back on any connection between ERPOs and suicide rates. Yep. That's exactly what we approved earlier. Yep. That's section six. This is repeal of the shooting range. Yep, repeal of the shooting range sunset. I'm shooting competition. Shooting competition, thank you. Sorry. And so now it's controlled by what we're adding. Section one. Right. So part two. Yep. So it doesn't go away, doesn't sunset. And what you have is then been proposed to be amended by section one of the bill. Is there any discussion? Understanding that discussion can follow. I'm pleased with this. And I think it hits both sides in positive ways. So I would do that we pass this out favorably. Senator Maruth has moved that we pass it favorably with the agreement that there may be an amendment to line 21 on page two, which is the date of April 11th. It could be September 30th rather than April 11th. Because there's confusion about that. Senator White. Are you taking comments right now? Sure. So I am supporting this. And I think that you did a good job of trying to do something that meets the needs, without going farther than some people would have liked and not as far as other people would like. But I have to say that I'm reading 4021 of Title 13. And I think I'm going to echo what Alice said earlier about the faith in the system.  Because this is the, I'm just going to say it.  It is confusing. It's hard to read. You're talking about the magazine. I'm talking about just this one section here about the magazines because I think it's contradictory within itself. It's hard to understand. Just the two conversations we've had this morning about the dates and whether Vermonters are in a disadvantage. The whole thing, I think, was done on the fly without the benefit of having gone through any committee.  And I, for one, hope it's struck down. It's not poorly written. It's not poorly written. No, it's not poorly written. The direction to the legislative council was poorly conceived. Yes, yes. The writing of it was really good. But the concepts behind it are, I just, I mean, we've had more discussion about how to interpret this in this conversation than we've had about a waiting period. So anyway, so that's my, I would totally agree with you as you know. I've never supported the magazine restriction. And I also hope it's struck down. But if it isn't, I think there are probably enough votes in here to ask to repeal it. But I am uncomfortable with voting to repeal something that is before the courts. And it is, we do have an executive, a legislative and a judicial branch. And so right now, that portion of the bill is in the judicial branch. And I think it would be not, it would be probably unconstitutional for us to, or at the very least, not a good idea for us to be interfering with what the judicial branch might decide. And to see my own remarks used in the case against Max Mish has caused me even more. Are there any other comments? Peggy can please call the roll on Senator Bruce's motion to approve section, the draft dated 315, 20 on 19, draft 1.1, at 10, 18 a.m. Senator White, just Senator Baruch. Yes. Senator Benning. No. Senator Ninja. No, with explanation. Senator Sears. Yes. Senator Ninja. So I'm voting no on this bill. I think it's, I think it is a good bill. It corrects a lot of things and does a few things that are, I think would be very good. But given the, given the future of this bill in the Senate and the House, I can't support it because it's too risky in terms of other things that might be amended. I'd also like to have that. I do appreciate the committee's work. I think it is a very valid attempt at trying to reach compromise. I don't want to leave people with the impression that I'm somehow angry with the committee because I think the committee worked very hard to reach consensus. I'd like to thank every member of this committee. I'd also like to thank people on both sides in the issue of so-called gun control.  And so actually helped us in our decision making. And I do appreciate every one of you. Particularly the public hearing in Randolph when I realized there was a sea of orange. But the people there, by and large, were extremely respectful of our process and made me proud to be the chair of this committee and to see this process work. This truly is compromised. It's too bad Washington can't do things like this. We have something here I think for everybody to like and something here for everybody to dislike. I realize that the waiting periods are problematic. I think that trying to fix last year's mess on the magazines, at least we're attempting to at least allow shooting contests and other efforts to continue and not to be banned. I'm also trying to correct some of the mistakes and who can transfer and who can will and how you can deal with those things. So I think there's a balance bill. I don't know what will happen. But I promise you all, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that it doesn't get housed. Thank you. All right.