Great. Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, February 9th, and we are going to be continuing our testimony on H 133. We have a number of witnesses today. We started last week, but we're unable to complete the testimony. I do want to note that we the testimony today we are still looking at the bill as introduced. Last week we did hear a witness discuss proposed language and you may we may in fact hear that again today. However, there is not, there is not an amendment as of yet. And so we are talking about the bill as introduced and want to make sure we get through our testimony the first round of testimony. Again, regarding the bill as introduced. So with that, I will welcome Eric Davis. Good to see you. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. My name is Eric Davis. I'm the president of gun owners of Vermont. We are an all volunteer nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to the preservation of the right to keep bare arms. I appreciate the committee having us in here today and giving us a chance to speak on H 133. It's our understanding this bill was drafted to an attempt to clarify a longstanding assumption in existing law that the court has the discretion to remove firearms from a person subject to a relief from abuse order. And it first glances seemed pretty straightforward and I was kind of looking forward to an easy day here with not much to say but the more we dig into it and you know after the hearing last week and hearing some of the testimony then you know we've we've had some some things that have caught our attention so I'd like to read from my testimony that I prepared from last week and I have some updated notes that I submitted to the committee as well and all kind of ad lib those in there as we go. So, our first and most immediate concern with H 133 is the last line of the bill, where we see that it seeks to not only confiscate firearms from the defendant, but also quote to those that another person possesses or controls on behalf of the defendant. And there was a little bit of discussion on that last week. Current Vermont law allows firearms to be stored by a person accepting legal responsibility for their safekeeping on behalf of person subject to a relief from abuse order. And that statute is 20 vs a 2307 which I have linked in both of my testimonies which deals with firearms relinquish pursuant to relieve from abuse orders storage fees and returns. So, you know, I won't go through and read everything word for word. You know, you guys can do it if you wish, but just basically skimming here 20 vs a 2307 allows it a person relinquish firearms ammunition or other weapons to a person other than cooperating law enforcement or a third party you know a friend or a family member, or someone like that. And it specifically states unless the court finds that relinquishment to another person will not adequately protect the victim so you know if they were, you know, giving him to somebody that was untrustworthy for instance. It also states the requirements for that person that is holding firearms and it states the penalties for violation of of the you know not holding those are giving them back to the defendant or something like that. So that's that's covered extensively in 23 in 20 vs a 2307. The ad lib a little bit here there was some discussion last hearing on the procedure for taking and storing and things of that nature, and I'd like to go into that a little bit. If the law states if the guns are not stored with a third party like a family member or a, or a, you know, a friend or something if they are taken by an FFL or a police officer. There are a couple provisions in there we'd like to point out. It states a law enforcement agency the stores firearms ammunition or weapons pursuant to subdivision be one of this section may charge the owner a reasonable storage fee not to exceed $200 for the first firearm or weapon and $50 for each additional firearm, or weapon up to 15 months and $50 per firearm per year thereafter there's also a per pound fee schedule for the storage of ammunition to. You know just to answer some of the questions that came up last time this obviously has some serious implications for anyone that's subject to having their property confiscated but especially folks with a large number of firearms or even folks who have a small number of firearms that may not have a very high retail value that might have more of a sentimental value. And so you know under this law someone who owns some old rifles passed down could you know conceivably find themselves in a position where they're forced to pay several times what the gun is worth to get it back from the folks who are storing and after legal issues are resolved. I think it further goes on to state that if the owner fails to retrieve the firearm ammunition or weapon and pay the applicable storage fee within 90 days. The firearm ammunition or weapon may be sold at a fair market value so if they can't pay, then their guns can be sold. That's you know important point that out and lastly to address one question that I know came up specifically about you know what what happens if they get damaged in storage or something like that and subsection H. There's law enforcement or whoever's storing them immunity from any sort of liability from damages or deterioration or anything like that. There is a caveat in there for negligence but you know other than that there's there's not really a whole lot of recourse for somebody to recoup any sort of losses if their guns get damaged in storage so if they do cap someone who's had their firearms confiscated as a condition of an RFA and they first have to pay the state to reclaim their property and thus their constitutional rights. You know if they want their guns back that's their right to have them and they have to pay to get them back. They lose their property and their rights permanently and if they can afford to pay and are willing to do so what they get back might be in much worse condition than what was originally taken from them but you know anyhow get circling back to the point here. You know we think that if existing law on relinquishing firearms already details the restrictions on third party storage we believe the last line of age 133 is redundant and unnecessary and potentially creates new and conflicting processes. We have concerned that such a provision might be interpreted and even exploited in some cases to take firearms from people who had nothing to do with the incident or the abuse in question and if you remember that's already happened to the state I think it was in Middlebury I can't remember the exact place but the the kid that was talking about bringing a gun to school and actually went and took the uncle's guns away from him so that that is a little bit of a concern for us when we start you know carving out niches to try to you know take more guns from more folks who aren't potentially involved. Furthermore you know moving on from that part we have concerns and we share the Federation's concerns about the issue of the standard of evidence which is found in 15 VSA 1103 1104 and 13 VSA 4054 which is Vermont's red flag law and that standard of evidence being preponderance. It is our position that in instances where an individual presents significant enough danger to justify the forfeiture of their right to keep and carry a firearm. That that decision be made only by due process and only by the highest evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt or approximately 90% certainty. We believe that any decision to suspend constitutional rights of any individual should not be taken lightly and rather it should be thoroughly deliberately deliberated and scrutinized to the highest degree.  The question was raised to him about the specific method of separating the defendant from the firearms and whether that was you know more of relinquishment or outright seizure and I want to quote Judge Greerson here he said a quote I would be surprised if any officer ever obtained a warrant because you only get a warrant if there is a crime. Or in other words if there is evidence of a crime. That's what a search warrant does so they really wouldn't have a basis to get a search warrant in advance of serving the order and they may or may not have one after. So on that note and with respect to the court's position it almost seems to us like there's a little bit of a double standard when it comes to upholding Second Amendment rights versus Fourth Amendment rights. And if there's not enough evidence for the court to determine that a person's protections against search and seizure must be lawfully suspended. We have to ask why then is that evidence considered sufficient for the court to order a person to quote unquote voluntarily turn over their guns, which also happened to be protected by an entire other constitutional amendment. You know, so we would like to see the committee undertake some, you know, some discussion of that nature on you know the standard of evidence. You know, especially when it comes to, you know, to upholding constitutional rights and we think that that should be held to the highest standard for for any constitutional right not not just guns. You know, generally speaking, we have a little bit broader concerns with the overall approach to the problem as it were. If we assume that the problem which we purport to address by legislation is ensuring the safety of the victims of domestic violence or violence in general for that matter. It seems to us that the legislature's attempts in recent years at fixing this problem seem narrowly focused and specifically they seem focused on creating ways to take guns from people who have not yet been convicted of a crime. And this is disturbing to us for a few reasons. Every time we hear about any sort of incident involving a firearm the conversation immediately changes to one that regardless of all their circumstances presumes the gun as the focal point of discussion. We've been conditioned to think that every incident involving a gun, and even the mere mention of guns should by default be viewed through the paradigm of gun control. We gun rights advocates have been tricked into arguing from a predetermined position because the conversation presupposes that guns are in themselves a problem and that we should discuss the relative merits of controlling them. Considering this is no surprise I can't remember the last conversation that the legislature has had which involves protection of this constitutional right and rather we always seem to be discussing what further restrictions will be considered this year and what new tools will allow us to keep people safe by circumventing the Constitution. The gun owners are consistently inundated with the presumption of guilt as well as restrictive and conflict story efforts against all users. We believe that we do a disservice not only to gun owners, but to all of those impacted by violence when we allow the conversation to take place within these parameters. And when we narrowly tailor our focus in this manner, when we approach the problem of violence with the idea that controlling objects will somehow control behavior. We neglect to address the multitude of other contributing factors and thereby lessen our effectiveness. We have to ask the questions. If an individual is such a threat to those around them that they cannot be trusted with a firearm. Why would we trust them with any other dangerous devices and why are those not specified by law. Additionally, if a person has been objectively determined to be an immediate danger to those around them. Why are they out walking around unsupervised anyway. Because not having a gun suddenly make this person safe. We do not take the issue of violence in our society lightly. And we recognize that there are people who need help and protection from those who seek to do harm. We seek to preserve article 16 and the second amendment specifically because they guarantee protection and deterrence for the average person and not just to those who are physically able to protect themselves or those who can afford to outsource outsource their personal security. We also realize that the actions of a very few individuals with guns reflect poorly on the vastly larger group of gun owners as a whole, and society as a whole for that matter, and it specifically brings criticism to those of us who are adamant about retaining our right to keep their arms. It's our hope that we might start a conversation about a different approach to the issue of mitigating violence, where we begin to analyze individuals and their actions for more of a psychological and a medical perspective, and not just a judicial perspective with a narrow focus on guns. Fishing for guns has been used a couple of times to describe this sort of legislation and we've been repeatedly assured that this is not the case with this bill. However, we're left considering a few unanswered questions in conclusion. Only if it is already a broadly accepted and relatively unchallenged assumption that the court has the absolute authority to confiscate firearms from a person subject to an RFA. If that's long been established, however you feel about that. And furthermore, if the court has expressed repeated concerns over tampering with the existing system, we're curious why this bill gets brought up the year after year. And we're a little nervous that there's an underlying purpose in this sort of proposing new legislation that has subtle caveats about taking guns from people not even involved. You know, if it's not for the purpose of fishing or finding more guns to take away from more people than what exactly does it do.  You know, we understand that that's a reality and that, you know, that that's a function of the court system. But I think at the very least we would like to see a very, very high level of scrutiny and deliberation when it comes to the issue of separating people from their constitutional rights. In its current state, we have to oppose this bill. We kind of find ourselves with a lot more questions than we have answers. So that's all I have. Thank you guys very much for the opportunity to speak on this today and I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your, your testimony. I'm not seeing any hands but I'll give people give committee members a little bit of time to unmute themselves or. I know that was a lot I get I get kind of long-winded sometimes I apologize. No, no, no, no, no, it's fine. It's absolutely fine. Appreciate it. Okay, I guess I'm not, I'm not seeing anybody. All right. Well, great. Well, thank you very much. Okay, and now we'll do a little more bill more. Okay, am I on mute? Very well. Yes, you are. Good morning, Madam chair and good morning members. Eric and other guests. I'm going to depart from my submitted testimony, which you'll see on the pages from last week, but I am, I am going to focus on a separate but underlying issue. Pre, I don't want to say pretense in a majority sense, the pretext for the bill as Eric, I think at least partly pointed out is that the current practice in family court with relief from these orders is an exercise of the additional discretion. The definition of which I can best explain to people who aren't lawyers is there isn't a statutory provision that prohibits it, and it is an accepted practice under the rules of court procedure with regards to those civil orders so it has been practiced. And I'm not, I'm not intimating that it's incorrect, it's been practiced as part of a judicial discretion. That's part of the ethical framework of our family courts and other courts. And the history of the relief from abuse order statute goes back to I believe 1980. And so we're talking about a very lengthy period of court practice, changing of evolving standards in the community and, obviously, unfortunately, involving conditions of the nature of domestic assaults. Unfortunately, not to the better. And so we need to acknowledge that there isn't a statutory underlying statutory basis for the practice of relinquishment or confiscation of firearms. So in terms of these orders, we need to acknowledge that there is no court precedent that has established it as a statutory interpretation that comes from somewhere in the statute. We're acknowledged by the courts as a practice that they have confirmed at the Supreme Court of Vermont's level for a discretionary part of these relief from abuse orders. We need to start from that position. There's no question about it. Judge Pearson explained it. I think I've explained it maybe a little bit more ad nauseam. The problem with that is simple. It's that's no good way to make statute. And in effect, what you're doing is proposing a bill that would enshrine, and some would say clarify but it would enshrine a discretionary practice acknowledged by the courts into the statute, which would basically say that the courts have already done your work and your rubber stamping. And I don't mean that in the majority of sense. I think it's just a matter of fact it's not uncommon that the courts have been lively in interpreting disputes between the state and individuals and brought about questions that the legislature is either been forced to or asked to answer. I would say the Brigham case is a case in point. The court came to you as a legislature and said your funding system is unfair. It doesn't comport with the common benefits clause among others and need to fix it, but we're not going to tell you how. I'm going to give you some great indications as to how that's happened. Now we have two cases. One was brought up and suggested by Eric. It's Patrick I may be brought it out through. That's indeed miscarry which is posted I believe on your web page last week. In that case, there was some court discussion and also a dissent on how far does this go how far does the statute allow the court to go. And I believe in this case if I'm not getting two of them mixed up. Yes it is. They raised the question of whether or not firearms and dangerous weapons was clearly within the statute's realm for relief from abuse order under the low level preponderance of evidence. And they questioned part of it because it was poorly worded and poorly documented on the evidence side there wasn't a lot of evidence in this case. That's indeed miscarry that the kitchen cutlery that this gentleman used in his work would be a nexus for future violence and they sent it back to the court they said look, we're going to confirm for now your firearms confiscation as part of the order, but we're sending it back to relook at this, and it raises a cloud over where that discretion is defined or not defined. And I would say it points out why the judges are responding to judge Greerson's polling, he's doing his job well he's calling out to his judges basically as underlying staff as it were, and saying you know what do you think of the conditions of this situation. How do you think this is working. What would help clarify it so that you can do your job better to serve the victims that this statute is intended to comfort and give relief to the remedy has been exercised within this broad area of discretion, it is not from the statute. This case points out where the court said hey well we're not particularly comfortable with that part of it you didn't work it well. Again, if you go to Reigns, it's another case which is from 2008. Just do a little click in here so I get my citation right Reigns v. Rogers in 2008. This case does question almost directly. How far can the court go and it also has a dissent in it as well and I would say that the next step for you as legislators would be to read both of those cases and read the dissents. The reason I'm asking you about this and bringing this all out is, I think that Judge Gerson is doing a service to the legislature by telling you how his judges are responding and giving you information about where they see this and he's giving you sort of three broad options. One is what you propose would ostensibly put in statute what discretion they're already exercising. The second broad concept was if you link it so directly in writing to the affidavit evidence as required in 13 BSA 1101, A I think it is, then you might even almost tie their hands a little bit within that discretion. So that was that sort of offhand proposal about changing the wording. The third concept is, if you do nothing we already have the discretion. I think I don't think I'm being unfair in characterizing his testimony in that way. That's sort of the picture he painted for you as legislators. The question before you is do nothing, or do one of these other things or look harder at this and decide whether there's a better role for legislative action. What I would suggest to you is, you need to start, you need to back up and start by reviewing the extreme risk protection order statute. How its utilization has been, how effective it's been in the courts, how its utilization has been trained into the courts, what the response times are like, especially for the ex parte orders, which by the way, the ex parte orders are basically on preponderance, similar to the proposal you have before you, but the permanent order raises the confiscation of firearms from a person or their home to clear and convince them. There was an acknowledgement during the debates on S221 and an acknowledgement that there were clear due process and evidentiary standards that we and others, including some in the Senate side, were proposing necessary for the protection of that right and the due process rights of both individuals. The other thing I'm proposing or suggesting or any of the thought process that I'm urging you towards is meant to be little in any way, the robust and seriously accessible relief from abuse order process for the basics. The relief from abuse order basics are distance separation of individuals from the person and workplace and daily lives, including harassment and stalking, either through public or private or electronic means. Those are serious tools, easily accessible. It's between two individuals or individual and possibly dependent children. It doesn't affect the real bare bones constitutional pre-existent natural and unable rights like possession of property or firearms in this case. It doesn't get at that. But it's very effective. We've seen it documented repeatedly and I think you all have applauded it properly. But by moving in this direction, you will be enshrining a discretionary practice with no basis in law, other than that it's part of discretionary judicial practice. It's already applicable and available through the extreme risk protection order process and any cop worth assault knows about it. And when they're processing an RFA affidavit or responding to a victim's request for relief, they can make that overture. In other words, they can almost fill the two forms out at the same time the affidavits overlap so strongly, they're almost indistinguishable from each other. So what I don't understand is this, why have not you had a serious conversation about the effectiveness of the extreme risk protection order to fill the gap that is ostensibly meant to be addressed by this bill. I think one last thought by complicating or layering anything further on to the simplicity and accessibility and robust nature, the basic RFA statute. You endanger its simplicity, accessibility and robustness. Every time you nick away and try to add on to it. You endanger its ability to work as well as it does now. So, with that I will leave you with my submissions that I've left. I've also sent in a fairly exhaustive research study. It's links and important documents on the extreme risk protection order, especially for new members who weren't there during us to do one. And I want to add from my previous written testimony, I am calling that anything I believe even the extreme risk protection order during the final hearing should be the defendant should be eligible for assigned counsel, the standard rules of criminal procedure and the standard court processes and statutes, and even eligible if indigent for paid counsel. So, with that I'll leave you, I would love to answer questions about either IRPO or RFA, or our standards as far as how our organization approaches this and I would, again, I applaud this RFA statute as it's, basically an effective and accessible and super robust process. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm just looking to see if anybody has any questions I'll give folks a minute to committee members to either get their hands raised or jump in. Make sure you don't miss. Okay, great. So I'm not seeing any. Oh, I'm sorry, Tom. I raised it last, last second. Thank you, Billy. And you had mentioned, again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but we had talked about I think you said this bill as written could potentially tie the judiciary's hands. Well, I think I was that close to what you said. I'm trying to be fair to judge Greerson and hopefully he's listening and he can correct me if I went outside the, the lines of painting. He had indicated that there may be some folks who would just want you to do nothing because the discretion they have is less defined than the bill. So, so not that it would endanger it. Their discretion would exist but it would be painted more narrowly under the affidavit link that you've established in your bill. I would if he were sitting here and I was having a conversation I would correct him in 1101 a and in at least one of the dissents in the case as I cited. It is specifically a nature of that statute is one of the impact one of the descent says, we are, we are ruling on a statute, a rare example of where a statute demands the evidence based on the affidavit be the basis for the civil order. And that is, that is a bit unique. And so the case that I was citing sort of indicates that if you delink that, maybe if you delink that or, or remove it, you're broadening the discretion and maybe heading off a possible appeal. Your bill specifically says this is we're going to have this it's going to be linked to 1101. You're basically making a statutory draft of the discretion by keeping that link to the affidavit in 1101. When you offer an order and 1103 or 1104, you may have created inadvertently the basis for an appeal, based on the underlying facts, you can look for appeals based on plain error. You might be putting the police in a position where their investigatory tactics that have to be a little bit more aggressive and a little bit more robust to make sure that they head off those appeals. I think Judge Brierson will have to respond to your question further but I think he was pointing out there's always a potential trap anytime you write language into statute that dictates procedure in the courts. Great. Thank you. I hope that was helpful. Any other committee members. That's seeing that's seeing anybody. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm going to go major Ingrid Jonas now I'm judge Grisham has testified before so I, I do want to get to two witnesses who have not had the opportunity to testify yet and then we'll go back to two other folks if they, if they'd like to testify so good afternoon and welcome. Nice to see you. Can you hear me all right. Yes. Okay, great. Thanks for having me. I believe this is the first time I've testified on this. For the record major Ingrid Jonas with the Vermont State Police Vermont State Police is one of five entities under the Department of Public Safety. I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this discussion on what I see as a fairly simple bill. And we see it as part of promoting safety for survivors of violent crime. I'm going to be pretty succinct. Because as I said I, I feel this is pretty straightforward from my understanding the bill is attempting to clarify or codify what is already occurring. That is that the court has the authority to order firearms to be relinquished in certain cases such as emergency relief from a news hearings. The powers of the court to promote safety in this manner and we will continue to serve and enforce orders as partners in that effort to promote public safety. We're already doing this work and meaning we frequently serve and enforce court orders as a fundamental part of the mission of the department. I'm not happy to answer clarifying questions or delve into other areas of discussion, but I just want to be clear that that is our position we see this as just a simple bill meant to clarify something that's already occurring. And we're partners in the effort to promote safety. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that I let me just see if any committee members have questions on the bill itself and then I will move to a to another topic. Let's come up. Okay. I'm not, I'm not seeing any hands. I was wondering if you could please address storage. A number of witnesses have expressed concerns about firearm storage and have expressed concerns that that bill could result in the need for more storage and that that's an issue and potentially reason why not to move forward with this with this bill so if you could update us on this the status of storage and whether or not that pertains to to this bill and if so how so thank you. Um, so I would say that storage of firearms, taken for safety or for evidence should not be an obstacle to providing relief for victims so I see them as separate issues I just want to make that clear. Sorry about separate issues here. So, um, I think depending on where which department you work in there, certainly storage is an issue and it's something that we should tackle. We should have a long term plan for storage of firearms. But again, I see it as part of our duty as public safety, people who promote public safety that we need to come up with a ways to do this and so, for example, you know we sees all kinds of evidence and cases, things as large as cars or you know that type of thing and we come up with ways to store evidence for items that we sees for safekeeping. I do feel that we're tight for storage in various parts of the state for, and I'm speaking from my department alone we have a accreditation through Calia, and that accreditation requires us to store firearms that are taken for safekeeping in a very different way than other types of evidence, for example, so we're in a situation where we have to find a different and separate place to store safekeeping firearms and we manage but certainly would benefit from a longer term solution, especially in cases where numerous firearms are never going to be able to be returned to the defendant and that type of thing. So, I just see it as a very separate issue from what it seems to me you're trying to achieve with this bill, and it shouldn't be an obstacle. Certainly, I think it's a discussion that that we need to have as a state and figure out how to support the agencies that are struggling with storage. Right, thank you. Yeah, I answered your question. Yeah, you did. Okay. I'm just looking to see if there are any other hands or committee members. I'm seeing anybody. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Good to see you. Thank you. See you. Yeah. Okay. Please hear from Chief Burke. It's a pleasure to see the committee for those that aren't familiar with me. My name is Sean Burke. I have the privilege of serving as the police chief in the city of South Burlington. And I spent the last 26 years or so in in policing in Vermont. For the opportunity to testify on this bill, I represent the Vermont chiefs and the Vermont police associations when I give my testimony today. This bill we see is one that offers clarity on the issue of firearm surrender. When the court has sufficient evidence to order a relinquishment. Vermont law enforcement are certainly committed to ensuring survivor safety. But there are some resource challenges related to firearm surrender. Each department has vastly different capacities both in terms of human resources and physical space in order to get this work done. Most municipal police departments prepared fiscal year 22 budgets against the backdrop of the pandemic. The majority of the budgets merely sustained operations and don't allow for investment in firearms storage solutions. Currently, a group of domestic violence stakeholders in Vermont are working on a firearms technical assistance project led by the National Council of juvenile and family court judges. The technical assistant project aims to accomplish a few things to assist the broader system in operationalizing firearm surrender and abuse prevention or service. Specifically, we're trying to develop a standardized protocol for law enforcement service of abuse prevention orders with specific provisions for those cases involving firearms surrender. It's important to note that current law in this bill involves surrender firearms. There is no broader authority granted to law enforcement to seize firearms. Another objective of the project is to examine firearms storage challenges both in the near term in the future. As major Jonas has said, survivor safety is about most importance. There needs to be a long range plan. A short or a more near term plan that the project is looking at is building a larger network of federal firearms dealers that could be contracted with for short term storage of any firearms surrender. This system needs to be built out around the state in order for law enforcement to have reasonable access. In general, we support this bill. Again, it codifies the practice that's already in place. I think there's a lot of anxiety around the number of instances of when these orders are actually issued. I wish there was better data to suggest how many times the court issues these orders because I don't feel it's as frequent as some may speculate. I'm happy to take any questions that the committee has. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Again, just letting folks. There we go. Okay, great. So I see Tom and Bob. Thank you. You mentioned possibly, as far as storage goes, talking to the license dealers, you know, if that's been attempted at all to talk to license dealers about storage of relink relinquished guns. So in terms of our work on the, on the TA on the project that Carolyn Hansen from the AG's office was going to start to look at that communication to see, you know, which FFLs would a be interested and then be who are equipped. I mean, there's a ton of like kitchen table dealers in the state, but there's an actual brick and mortar storefront with adequate storage facility to keep these firearms safe. Right. Just, just thinking back about, you know, what I think would be the mindset mindset of federal firearms dealers. I'm just going to guess that there's going to be a high percentage that wouldn't even think of starting relinquished guns but but anyway, thank you. So, from what I've heard potentially with this bill, there's, there's the potential that there's going to be more firearms confiscated. And, and the last two witnesses have both talked about inadequate storage that we have. And this certainly isn't the first time that we've talked about an inadequate storage. And, you know, and I've heard a few times, probably more than a few times through the years now, we need to. And we haven't, but we keep passing laws that are going to potentially tax the storage system a little more. And here we are talking about it again. And I'll say it, we need to, and we need to do something about the storage issue. Talk getting us there. And I don't know if, if, you know, us as the state are going to continue to pass laws that are going that are going to or potentially increase the number of confiscated firearms, then the state needs to step up and just do it and take care of this problem. It's not a potential problem, it's a problem. You know, listening to the last two witnesses so it just doesn't make sense to me on that level I certainly appreciate the last two witnesses.  But in they were, the two issues were kind of separated but they overlap, you know, the, they, at a minimum they touch each other and, but I see them overlapping because one issue is creating a bigger problem and the other issue so I don't know. That's going to continue the state of Vermont needs to step up and have a centralized or, or, you know, maybe four different areas in the state that these weapons can be stored. Thank you very much sir I agree and it's weird when you become a police chief suddenly have to worry about these things called budgets. The duty to do this work is clear and compelling. Backside, as you have identified, we need, we need some capacity there Bill. Oh, I totally agree with you. I mean for, for you folks it's an unfunded mandate almost and somehow it needs to be funded, whether it's a state facility or getting money to our, you know, maybe not to all departments but enough departments where maybe they could take the firearms from a smaller one something like that but I don't know that something needs to be done we've got a problem that we've been talking about for. Well this is going to be my, oh gosh, a seventh and eighth year on judiciary and I think we've talked about it every year, and nothing's happening. Before I get to I just, Chief Burke I was wondering if you could help me understand. So, I don't think I heard you testify that this could result in more quote unquote confiscation of firearms. Curious to know if you think whether or not it would. It's all speculation at this point. And again like a question that we raised as at the project levels, how many of these orders are being issued and we simply don't know. I would say that you know I do police an urban environment where we don't necessarily have a number of these orders being served here, but that number is opaque at best, and whether or not a new statute will bring heightened awareness and additional orders in the community. I don't know. I don't know how it intersects with the number of guns that have been sold as reported in the media, I don't know if that prevalence is going to increase it I think there's just way too many unknowns to weigh in too deep. Thank you and in terms of storage do you see that related separate a reason not to move forward on this bill just curious what your thoughts on that please. We have two minds when an order comes and we've got a dangerous person and their intimate partner says that I fear that I'm going to be killed. And this person has access to a gun or we need to get that gun, and we need to deal with, you know, storage and handling of that downstream of it. You know, how many of those cases will then subsequently result.  But survivor safety is very compelling. And the reason why we do this job so sometimes even I too can be blind to some of the fiscal ramifications of these decisions. Thank you, Bob. Chief Burke, how are you? Good news, sir. I'm doing all right. I was wondering chief under title 20 BSA 2303 where it states that delivery of an unlawful firearm in possession of an agency which is not going to be used for evidently purposes or in a criminal procedure. Have you ever tried to bring a firearm to your local barracks or contact the Department of Public Safety I probably should have, and I probably should have thought this one the major and I see she's still here so maybe she won't chime in on this also. Has the Department of Public Safety ever told you that you, they do not have a room to take in a firearm, because by statute obviously they're supposed to be doing that because I think both you and I can concur that storage of firearms at any point time can be of a big concern for law enforcement. Certainly I think, once you understand what the definition of an unlawful firearm is that's like the first hurdle, and we were able to do that, we're able to move a batch of firearms to buildings and grounds and that that was a good process. If we're talking about guns, whether it's one or 101 that we're going to hold for 10 days while we wait for an RFA hearing, or then the days ensuing a final being, you know, issued, while the defendant figures out what they're going to be able to do with that gun, that gun may not be unlawful if it's then, you know, legally or lawfully transferred to someone else so I think that's the fickle part about the statute, you know, the statutory framework in 20 is that unlawful guns seamlessly can move to DPS buildings and grounds. These guns that are not yet unlawful, different story. Thank you. So I think you answered the second part of my question which under the statute constitute what says unlawful firearm. So what constitutes unlawful firearm just due to the fact that a court or so she must take this fire from some of these belongings here what constitutes unlawful. Yeah, and that's one that you know we hear municipal government we pick up the phone we talked to public safety about what what that is and we get good guidance. So how many firearms you figure in the course of year you may have to take under these these court orders. So under family court orders, we've taken very few and give us a less, less than 10 in my time here. And but how this bill would potentially magnify it. I don't know that's pure speculation. Okay, and my final question is so out of those 10 if you probably take it how many a return. Because if there's a family member or there's a couple things that complicate this. If there's a family member transferring that to a lawful, you know, third party if you will, or the other prevailing incident that hems this up all the time is marijuana and drug use this document that we know about. And the federal ramifications of putting a gun in the in the hands of a drug user. So I don't know out of that 10, which is around number, how many we've successfully reunited with with folks, but I do know that there's at least two that rattle around because of marijuana use on the part of either the person that now can have that gun back. You know, if the plaintiff didn't seek a final order, and the order is has now expired and no longer exists. Getting that back but yet we've got a documented drug history with that person, or if the person that they wanted to transfer it to. Okay, thank you. Good to see you as well sir. I just want to turn to major Jonas I didn't know if you wanted to respond to to the question because you were, you were referred to. I understand it the same way as chief Burke that there's a pretty clear path forward for unlawful firearms through the bgs auctioning process so that would be an unlawful firearm that is perhaps rendered in such a way that it makes it illegal or it has no serial number on it. Other types of things. Those can be destroyed or auctioned. And that's my understanding of the process I don't know if I can clarify for rep Norris further. Okay, thank you. Felicia. Thank you. I think this is a question to who it's pertinent but it might be you, Madam chair. Given the extent of the conversation around storage and therapeutic sentiments that if cost for an issue. I would love to see a fiscal note. I think that it would come out to to have adequate and appropriate storage. And given that there's not a wealth of data on this. I wonder if the courts just have a number, average number of RFAs and we can multiply that by the months average number of firearms per person to get an approximate firearms that would be turned over in RFAs to get a number for the storage so that we can actually attach a price to what we're talking about so then we might be able to dive into the other. More problematic tones of this bill and and put that behind us. Would that be possible. I think certainly we can ask the commissioner of public safety, if he has any of those numbers you can certainly ask the judiciary. And, however, when we have committee discussion I think we'll determine whether or not in fact storage is related to this bill, or if in fact is a separate. So at this point we'll hold on. Thank you. Any other questions for the chief. Okay, great. So, why don't we take our, our break now, and then we'll, and we'll come back and continue with our with our witnesses. So let's come back at a, I'd say 225 please. Madam chair. Yes. I think the commissioner had came on. I don't know if his hand came up, but he came visual. So I wasn't sure if he wanted to make a quick response to that question. Thank you. Your honor. Sorry. Just again for the record Brian Greerson chief superior judge just to follow up representative left left there's a question or comment about storage. I can give you the number of relief from abuse orders that have been granted on a temporary basis. We also have a number of those that were granted on a final basis, meaning if they weren't granted finally then they firearms go back. Data does not capture is for every temporary order that's issued, it wouldn't capture that specific clause of our firearms ordered confiscated or relinquished. And even if it did that, we don't have a record of what was actually turned over in other words. Court may order a relinquishment of firearms currently, but we don't track that data. And the information we may have available to us as some person has a long gun or firearm handgun. But it turns out they may not have both those firearms so there's just, I'm not aware of any, any entity at this point that tracks. How many of our orders include provisions for relinquishment of firearms. Or how many are actually confiscated as a result of an order being issued. So before you get to storage. I think those are certainly two gaps in the data that I that I'm aware. Now maybe there's someone else out there that tracking that but it's not the court. I think that your honor. My line of thought understanding that we do have real serious gaps in the data, with which to calculate what I'm asking for. I would just have to bring my construction mindset with me to this problem is, I don't build a closet for the shoes I have I built a closet for the shoes, I might have. I don't build something to what it's exact current use would be because it leaves no room for potential overflow or change. So I think the perfect data isn't needed for this fiscal note that I'm after it's more. What could we be looking at so that we can get a more accurate idea of what we're requesting so that we are not asking our local law enforcement to put another unfunded mandate in their budget and pass it on locally. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thank you for being here and thank you coach for that. Okay, so let's take a break and come back at when we come back at 230. Thank you.