Good morning, Mr. Senate Judiciary Committee, January 20, 2020. We're going to end at 11.45 today for those of you who are interested in order to give some people time to watch the inauguration of Joseph Biden and Donald Harris. So we're going to end at 11.45 this morning instead of noon time. The topic of today's hearings is S-30, introduced by Senator Baruth and 15 other senators, which as you know, is a majority of the Senate. And that has to do with possession of firearms in prohibited locations. The two-page bill is S-30. I'm going to ask Eric to walk us through the bill so that we can better understand what's in it and what's not in it. But Senator Baruth would like to make a short statement before we start since he's the sponsor of the bill. He's more than welcome to use it. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can everybody hear me okay? Yes, sir. Okay, good. So S-30 is, as the chair said, a short bill. It's not a simple bill in the sense that no gun safety bill is ever simple. But it was drafted a year ago before the pandemic in response to incidents that I had been seeing around the country of people coming into government buildings with firearms and using them in an intimidating, sometimes threatening manner. So that was part of a bill to ban semi-automatic weapons in those spaces. And then and now, as everyone knows, these incidents have intensified and increased in number to the point where several days ago, every state capital in the country was on a form of lockdown because of threats of armed revolt, insurrection, protest. We're in a space where no one really knows what to call it or how serious a situation we're in. So this bill began to seem to me more and more crucial, more and more necessary. And the pandemic intensified that in that anti-mask protests began to also merge with these armed groups and people in stores have been threatened, people in hospitals, people in daily life who ask others to wear a mask have started to be routinely assaulted and threatened. So we're in an unprecedented time. And what I tried to do in S30 is to strip down the bill that I had drafted earlier into just the absolute minimum that I thought everyone might be able to agree on.  And I think if you were to ask the average Vermonter, they would say that those are resoundingly common sense ideas that you don't need, and you don't want guns in those areas. So, again, that's the spirit that this comes forward with, that it's a necessary measure right now, and that it's been stripped down to the bare elements so that the most people in the House and the Senate could agree on it. So, with that, I'll turn it over to Eric with my thanks for helping me draft. Eric, please. Yes, sure. Thank you and good morning, everybody. This is Eric Patrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to talk about S30. First, I'll ask Senator Bruce, can everyone hear me okay. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. As Senator Sears, excuse me and Senator Group both indicated, this is S30 is called an act relating to prohibiting possession of firearms at childcare facilities, hospitals, and certain public buildings. You can tell from the title actually that this, this piece of legislation doesn't affect sort of what groups of people may possess firearms the way other statutes in Vermont do it doesn't affect what types of firearms a person may possess. It's what's sometimes referred to as a location restriction. So sometimes these sorts of laws are referred to in that manner to location restriction. For the purposes of background, maybe helpful for for the committee to know that Vermont already has two location restrictions on the books and has for many years. Title 13 you have statutes that prohibit the possession of firearms at both schools and courthouses. Those are the school statute was passed in 1989. The courthouses statute was passed in 1993. So you've had both of those location restrictions on the books for plus or minus 30 years now. In addition to that, interestingly, and I think the committee talked about this at its last meeting, although there's nothing in statute prohibiting possession of firearms in the State House. There is a joint House and Senate rule that it's rule 26 C, and that expressly does prohibit the possession of firearms in the State House, but it's a rule, not a statute. I spoke with the Chief Capitol Police Chief Matt Romay about that, just to see what would happen if a person did have a firearm in the State House and the Chief indicated that you know he would talk to the person and coin out the rule and try and ask them to comply but that if that wasn't the case, then his options would be, you know, perhaps a trespassing or a breach of the peace sort of offense, but there's no criminal offense for possessing in the State House. So his options are what he indicated. He also just so the committee notes that he'd be happy to testify at the committee wanted to hear from him about firearms in the State House. I just wanted to mention that, but that was his, what he could offer for now. So the point is that statutorily in, you know, on the books now you have two location restrictions, schools and courthouses. What S30 proposes to do is to add three more. And as Senator Baruch indicated, the three more are childcare facilities, hospitals, and certain public buildings. And that the, when I was thinking that I would do now is share my screen so that we could look at the language. Is that okay with you Senator Sear. Does that make sense to do? Yeah, I do have a brief, a question before you share the screen Eric. Right now I, if I go up to my local hospital there's a sign saying that it's firearm and tobacco free. And what would happen if I did carry a firearm into the hospital which clearly is prohibited similar to the State House evidently a rule or whatever. What are the consequences for doing that under current law? I think it's probably similar to what the chief was facing with respect to the State House. As you said, it's, it's not a criminal prohibition to this. It's not a person isn't committing a crime, but a private location is certainly permitted to decide whether or not to allow firearms on, on site. But they would have to see if, you know, the circumstances supported a breach of the peace or a trespass kind of crime and I think that probably would depend on the circumstances of each situation. And but I think those would be the options that I can think of right now. Thank you. That's helpful because, you know, I can remember I don't I wasn't here when they did the schools in 1989 but I was here when the court was 1993 that was my first year in my first experience. I thought it was that later than that actually. Yes, I was wondering the year I was surprised it was, I thought it was late 90s. Yeah, I did too. So please go ahead with the walkthrough and sharing. Sure. Let me give that a try. So I'm going to try and pull up the bill itself here. Right. Was I successful. Yes. Okay, good. I you probably remember from the last time I shared this screen. I can only see the document so if someone I'll try to pause regularly, but since I can't see somebody asking a question, please feel free to interrupt me or, or just let me know if there's, I should stop for a moment. So, turning to the language of the bill as I mentioned it's a pro location restriction on possessing firearms at childcare facilities hospitals and certain public buildings. You'll see that it adds a new provision into the weapons chapter of title 13 the criminal code section 4023 is the new proposed section dealing with exactly what we just described possession of firearms that prohibited locations and that's subsection 15 sets out what prohibition is person can't possess a firearm shall not possess a firearm at a prohibited location. Now prohibited location is a defined term which we're going to see when we get to the definitions in a minute or two, but it's going to be essentially those three locations that I just described childcare facilities hospitals, certain public buildings. Subsection B you'll see that that it's a one year misdemeanor with a $1,000 fine that one year misdemeanor is the same penalty that you remember that the work that the committee's done in firearms area over the last several years. The one year misdemeanor is typically what's used for the background checks under age sales, all those, all those provisions that you enacted. The one year misdemeanor and $1,000 fine as it happens that the prohibitions on the books that I mentioned for schools and courts those location restrictions also are a one year misdemeanor. So it's consistent with that as well. Although the fine in those cases is $500 but that may just be because they were enacted 30 years ago. So the, the location restriction penalty, the one year is the same as, as the other firearm statutes they have in chat in this chapter. So, that's the prohibition and the penalty. Subsection C you'll see is a couple of exemptions. They're also standard for what you have in the firearm statutes overall, you have an exemption for law enforcement officers that subdivision one on line 19. So law enforcement officers both federal and state are exempted from this would not be covered by the by the prohibition and in subdivision to which is the line three of page two, you'll see federal departments and agencies also exempted. That could be for it could be for example, members of the armed services members of the National Guard, that sort of thing. That's, again, common language, sometimes some statutes specifically identify armed forces national guard members, but in this case it just uses the more broad, the broad phrase of any, any representative or entity of the United States or federal or state government. So that's the prohibition and the exemptions that brings us to really to what in some, some senses, the meat of the bill which is of course the definition section. That is also what is being swept in here what is it that's being prohibited and how do we define the places and the firearms themselves. So the first definition that you come to because obviously key since this is a prohibition of possession of firearms you have to define what you mean by that. And that's line six page to firearm definition you'll see is the same. It just cross references the definition that you already have, which that statute is the felons in possession of firearms statute, which is based itself on the federal definition. So essentially, you're using the federal definition which you've also used again all these recent measures that the legislature has taken with respect to firearms have used the same definition it's no different. And what it does is basically excludes antiques, muscle loaders, black powder, that kind of thing. I'm sure that committee remembers that that's standard language that you've used a number of times now recently so it's basically any firearm except for as I say antiques, muscle loaders, black powder are excluded from that. So that's the firearm definition that you use. Then move on to prohibited location so obviously the next key point is okay where can where are where is the possession of firearms prohibited. And as we mentioned at the beginning three different places. There is a childcare facility. Also, you'll see that cross references another existing definition in statute. And that definition is in the licensing licensing statute for childcare facilities. So make some sense that you know childcare facilities have to be licensed under state law and if they meet this definition of a childcare facility, it has to be licensed. It's the same definition here. If it's a facility that has to be licensed as a childcare facility, then that is the facility where a firearm cannot be possessed. You'll see that there's an exemption. After that cross reference line nine. Chuck doesn't include the childcare facility that is a family daycare home that provides care on a regular basis in the caregiver's own home. In other words, if, if obviously it's in a person's own home wouldn't make sense to prohibit the person from possessing firearms there. So that's why, why that circumstance is carved out. But other than that, the, the cross references to the existing licensing statute. I pause because I thought I heard perhaps someone asking a question but I'm actually, I have a question, even if somebody else does they can raise their hand or shouted out because I can't see everyone right now. When we say prohibited location. And I remember this discussion during our back when we did the court houses. What is the location and when we did something with schools which was after I came so. What about the grounds of a school, the ground or a family childcare family, a childcare facility the grounds of a office building a hospital and so. Is it the building, there's a sign in the state houses into the building it doesn't say you couldn't carry a firearm outside the building what is the intent here. Well, I think that, at least with respect to the government building you see the language in line 13 specifies that it's the building. So in that case, clearly a publicly owned building. I'm looking at a childcare facility I'm looking at, and I also emailed these links to to Peggy last night so you can pull these up if you want but I'll read it to you right now the definition of childcare facility that this cross references which is entitled 33 says any place or business or service on a regular continuous basis then it goes on to describe the, not nothing related to the location but more the function, you know, whose primary function is protection care and supervision of children under 16 years of age outside their homes etc etc. But the operative language in response to your question center series was was the first few words, which was any place operated as a business. But so, I would read that in that case as for example I mean I know that just as the as an example of childcare facility that I use. You know there was a building but there was also an outside area playground area where the kids would go out and play and that sort of thing. So I would read that, because it says place as including that area, but I want to make sure it. That's fine but we had issues regarding somebody comes to pick up their child that a school and they just been out hunting and the firearm is in the in a rifle rack in the pickup truck, visible to everybody is that a violation. Yes, and in fact that in the parking. Yeah, you that statue was set up to provide different penalties depending on whether it was the building or the grounds. That's right so I would. I'm concerned about. Again, the hospital, because there are huge parking lots and most hospitals I, I drove, I had a doctor's appointment at the Rutland hospital. And believe me, I drove about four miles trying to find actual entrance to the doctor's office. So, and I was still in their parking lot. And though Senator Nick knows what I'm talking about she's been there I guess. I think we have to be really clear that we're talking about the building and not necessarily the parking lot. So that concerns me. Yeah. If I could, I agree with you. I agree with you in terms of the hospital and the publicly owned building for government functions. The childcare facility I think is different, because as Eric said, schools and childcare centers have outdoor play areas. Those have been specifically targeted by mass shooters in the past. So, I would hate to have it be. I know now it's illegal and correct me if I'm wrong Eric. It's illegal to bring a gun onto a school playground. Is that correct. That's correct. So I would, I would want to mirror. Yeah, so I would want to mirror that in the childcare piece of this. I'm more comfortable with language on that that mirrors what we have for schools. Yeah. Because we've already had, you know, experience with that people understand it. I think most people thought a childcare facility was was a school, and that that would be treated the same. I'm concerned, however, about the definition. You know, as I said about the hospital. Is the building and not necessarily outside. I mean, I can see somebody going to the emergency room in an emergency and they've got a rifle in the back of their pickup. Charge. And it's locked and they've gone into the emergency. Senator White. I was going to echo Phillips. The childcare, but the hospital and the publicly owned building, I think it really needs to be clear that it's just the building. It isn't the grounds. Agreed. Okay, Eric, thank you for that. Sorry, go ahead. Well, I think as we look at this bill, hopefully. Any redraft will. Commodate those two concerns. Yes, I think I'm following it. I think it's the idea is building only for the hospital. But what childcare facility make clear that includes the grounds and consistent with what we've done for schools. Yeah, Joe, that makes sense. Joe has a comment or question or issue. Yeah, I look at the childcare facility question as a place that is going to cause me problems. And a couple of years ago we passed legislation requiring licensure of people who are working in childcare centers. And I know there's a difference between childcare facility and a family daycare home. But Essex County immediately lost 40% of childcare availability. And so we've got to walk through this very carefully if we're going to arrive at consensus. Because the Northeast Kingdom has childcare facilities where people are coming and going with no nefarious intent. But they may have a weapon attached to the rack in the back of their pickup truck for whatever reason. And this potentially brings up an ignition point. Pardon the pun for people who are simply going about their day. And it may have a negative impact on what childcare availability is left here in the Northeast Kingdom. So, unless this is really tailored to the building itself, and perhaps a playground or whatever that's inside some kind of a fenced off area, leaving it vague. But anybody coming into the parking lot is automatically in violation is very problematic for me. Just giving you a fair warning. Thank you, Joe. And it could I just comment on that. Absolutely. I agree with what Joe is saying. And I don't personally, I think the building and the playground area would be would be fine. I don't, you know, I think the people in the Northeast Kingdom right now are dropping their kids off at school, and they are, you know, avoiding coming into conflict with the law in terms of those guns in their car. So I don't, I don't think in some practical sense it would be an issue but I take Joe's point. And if we have to define it as specifically playground area and building I would be okay with moving in that direction. All right. Eric, if you want to continue the walkthrough. Sure. And the that kind of segues us into into the hospital definition. As we've been talking about that it does also just as the childcare facility definition did the cross reference there you see it's a hospital has defined an 18 BSA section 19 or to that is also the licensing statute. Similar concept to childcare facility if it's a hospital that is required to be licensed under Vermont law then that's where the firearms prohibition would apply and similar to the language that was used in the childcare I'm looking at the hospital language now in section 19 or two, and it does use the same word place hospital means a place devoted primarily to the maintenance operation of diagnostic diagnostic etc etc medical terminology after that but the point is that it uses the word place. So, if I hear the committee correctly we're going to make sure that that language clarifies that it's building only. Yes. Absolutely because we don't have access to law books like we do in the, in the building. If you provided all of those, maybe on the committee web page. The statutes mentioned in this bill, like 3030 commit Peggy posted them this morning so they are okay. She's way ahead of me. Thank you. If I read this correctly. We're almost at the end. Yeah, we've got one last definition. And, and that's the publicly owned building. You'll see that that uses language that defines it both by by who, how it's owned and how it's used. You'll see the public building that is currently in use for the performance of essential government functions. So it has to be both both publicly owned and currently in use for the performance of essential government functions. The intent here is not to include every, you know, potentially empty town shed or government garage or something like that it must be a building that's actually in use for the performance of government functions so it's defined by both ownership and use. You can hear that some state statutes that that prohibit possession of firearms and government building sweep much more broadly than this and prohibit firearms in any government on building. This doesn't do that. It has to be government owned and in use for performance of essential government functions. It's actually similar to to the federal law which I also is also on the committee's website. The federal language provides similarly that and federal I should say, its possession of firearms and dangerous weapons and what's known as defined as federal facilities and a federal facility is defined as a building, or part there of owned or government where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties. So you see that's a similar concept that the federal law takes it has to be owned by the federal government and federal employees have to be regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties so that's conceptually similar approach that's taken here. So, Eric, the defense attorney in me is kicking in here. And I saw Doug Hoffer on the screen earlier. Doug Hoffer's building is currently in use by employees. I would say that somebody walking in there with a gun would fall into this definition. I would say that same building and there's no employees in there. As a defense attorney I would be arguing. It's not currently in use. I've heard you relate the federal definition and it seems like the federal definition has a more clear intent than what we've got written here. Am I wrong. I think as soon as you mentioned the federal definition right then with your question. I had actually as I was looking at the language here and s 30 I thought that word currently, you're correct it would be better off with the word regularly. And then when I looked at the federal statute that does use the word regularly. So, I think that's, that's, you're right that's a better term. And it may be that the federal language itself you might decide is, is better captures the intent of what you're looking at. If you like I can read it one more time. I think we got it. Yeah, so I have a few questions about this and I don't know if they're for Eric or for when we discuss it but first of all, publicly owned so it has to be owned. So if the state offices in very are rented from somebody this wouldn't cover them. And it covers all government functions so that it's so it covers town halls. I think it's well here, I believe, and things like city center. We have government offices there but they're not owned by the government and the I when I read this. I include in this the town garage, because that the plowing of the roads in Putney is an essential government function. And that is what they do. And that means that those guys that work down there at the garage to go pick up their to start their day can't have their, their rifles in their cars or their trucks when they go to work because that is the although this is the building, they can't have it in the garage. But so I think I think the definition needs to be a little bit clearer about what, what we mean here and and I guess the question is, does it cover all all government buildings all town halls, town garages, salt sheds, because they're all essential government functions, whether and so I just think we need a clear definition. Right. I think we have to have this in discussion. Okay, I think we're, we're a little bit jumping the gun here. Okay, on this issue because I at first I thought we were talking to you know I'd had. If you, are you finished Eric. Yeah, I somehow said thank you. Okay, I noted the effective date is July one. If we could not square this share the screen and we can go on to our witnesses, but I want to suggest that at some point, if we get to the markup stage of the bill. We need to deal with these problems that Senator Benning Senator White, and I, to some extent myself identified with the proposal. My concerns I want to just say that I heard from two statewide elected officials with concerns about threats to their. In their buildings, they're, you know, following the January 6 insurrection in Washington. That's the genesis of people several why are you bringing this up it's not coven related, but I do believe it is, it is related to what's happening nationwide. And watching CBS news this morning, not to give them a lot of credit but the governor of Michigan was on talking about her experience in Michigan with arms insurrection and the alleged attempt to kidnap her on trial. They didn't like what she was doing to deal with COVID-19. So, I think there's a general sense, if you're in government right now, that you can be under significant danger and the buildings. The concern I heard was not for the individual office over, but for their staff and for the people of those folks. So, and we've seen it in Georgia, we've seen it all over so that's why I'm bringing this up. I've taken up this bill. People can argue with me over whether it's COVID related or not. And that's my reason for doing it. So I would now turn it over to our Attorney General, Thomas Donovan, for any comments on the bill and whether or not he any comments. DJ welcome again. Regular here now. Thank you for having me included. Thanks for having me. Good morning. TG Donovan, Vermont Attorney General for the record. I'll be very brief. I support this bill. This is a common sense approach to public safety to reasonable gun regulations. This is needed, given what's going on in the world, and it just makes common sense given the public spaces that the bill are prohibits firearms in so I support it. It's good public policy. It makes sense. And people have a right to feel safe and not to worry. And this issue of guns intimate and intimidation is real. And kind of call last week from a constituent, not in one of these spaces in the bill but exactly Senator Bruce described an argument about a mask and where somebody then lifted up a, I guess a jacket or a code and showed a gun. This makes sense. It's a good bill and I think the Senate Judiciary Committee for for taking it up and has my full support. Thank you. Do you share the concerns about some of the definitions and will your office be available to help us to clear more clearly to find some of these concerns. Absolutely, we're always available to help but I think the questions raised by the senators are good questions and will make the bill and even better bill. Any questions, Senator Benning has a question for. Well TJ as your office is looking into this my defense attorney mechanism is kicking back in essential government services. What's essential what's not. And I know Doug offers offices are essential government services your offices. I'm not so sure. But there's a grading that is suggested by that language. I hope you guys look into that and figure out if there isn't a better way to define that. For public edification that was a joke by the way. You're not you're not the first to call me not an essential. So, it was one of my questions to Joe is what, what do we mean by essential. And I think Eric was talking about the federal definition which is regularly used for government services and I think another question we have is where the towns want to be involved. Do they want the same protection in their communities, as we're proposing here for state. So maybe, maybe in the future on this bill we should hear from the Mont League of Citizens. And we're happy to we're happy to assist in any way in terms of the research that that you may need. Okay, I appreciate that any other questions for the Attorney General. Mr Attorney General thank you. Congratulations on your recent reelection. I'll say the same thing to Doug Hoffer. Doug, congratulations on your reelection I'm glad that Senator Benning sees you as an essential function of government as opposed to some others. So please welcome to Senate Judiciary and Happy New Year. Thank you Senator Sears and Senator Benning I made a note of that. Repute your reference. No, I'll only pause to note that the chair has not congratulated his committee members for getting reelected so you're in high ground right now. And I'm sure he was also referring to the treasurer who's also on the screen with us. Well, just to be clear Senator Benning. I'm pleased that all of you got reelected I didn't think any of you had as much competition as I did so I just thank you. Again, for the record Doug Hoffer State Auditor, I too support the bill. And as it happened a week or so ago, an article came out and mentioned in passing that I gather now mistakenly that the State House and court houses were afforded this protection I now know that it's a rule of the State House and not a statutory prohibition but I was curious so I contacted Jim Condos and I said isn't that odd that some public officials are protected by this statute or relevant statutes and other public officials and employees are not. And that's when he told me of some of the threats he had received and I was concerned. So I expressed that so I think it makes sense. I don't know why I haven't been done before but I do have a brief comment about the statutory language and let me say that I have not received any threats to myself, or to my staff. I don't think it's possible. And I would hate to have it happen on my watch that I hadn't stood up for my employees and my concern about the languages, your discussion earlier senators years and the rest of the committee about building versus grounds. As you may know, not that any of you have ever been to my building I don't think but there are five people who work on the first floor, all of whom thankfully have windows. You can literally walk within two or three feet of every single person and what works on the first floor. And a gun is not going to have a problem with the window. Period. So, this is not about coming into the building and roughing somebody up. And, and thankfully, it seems to me very unlikely that anybody's ever going to come to my building or Jim condos next door have some threats with the intent of doing harm. This would be some person who was particularly angry and upset and just got pushed over the edge, but we've seen it happen in Barry and elsewhere around the country so I just asked you to think about this. I don't know how you would deal with this. It's a challenging question. You can't stop somebody who can depend on you might very well have a big sign that says don't do that we have lots of science that they don't do things that people do them anyway but just want you to know that my concern about my employees starts before people get into the building. They don't have to get into building to hurt the people who work in my building. Otherwise, I think it's a good bill. Good idea. Thank you very much for taking it up. Thank you. Any questions for the auditor accounts. And again, thanks for being here Doug we appreciate it and look forward. You know you're in a position where you're auditing. And you're also on a team of individuals, which may make some of them uncomfortable, taking shares. For example, you know, it may not be any threat to any of you right now, but it could. Could be Senator peru as a question for you. Not not a question, Mr Chair, but I think some people might listen to the auditor's testimony about the windows and think that that's dramatic. But if you remember in 2015, Laura Sobel, a DCF worker was hunted down and targeted for the government functions that she was performing. And we would be remiss not to mention her. And at the time, there was a general outcry for all state employees that were seeking more protection. So I think the auditor's point is very on point. And we looked at, for example, the Springfield State offices where there's a parking lot that is very poorly lit and was primed for problems. On the other hand. So we'll continue to work on this, Senator White. I do. I don't want to sound like I don't agree with this at all. But I do think that we need to be really careful about expanding it to all perimeters or parking lots or whatever, just because I think that if somebody really was intent on doing harm to somebody that they don't even need to be in the same parking lot or the same two feet from the window, two feet from the window, there are all kinds of ways to shoot somebody if that's their intent. I'm just concerned here that if we get to the point where we're talking about parking lots and then the edges around the parking lots. So I don't know here. I think we just need to be careful. I appreciate what Doug is saying. But I want us to be a little bit careful. And by the way, we also have to remember that there are already laws on the books which prevent someone from using a gun to shoot somebody. And that's something that is on my mind through this entire conversation. Doug, you had a comment or question? Yeah, real quick. About a year ago, a little more, after thinking about it for quite some time, I made the decision to ask DGS and ABS to install some heightened security equipment at the building. It used to be until then that you could just walk into the building. And I like that. I like that about your building. I like that about state government generally. But I got a little nervous and decided, as I mentioned, to ask them to do it, and they did. So while someone might not come to the building intent on causing harm, they could approach that camera, be told, for a number of reasons. I'm a little uncomfortable. Could you call us or you can't come in? I'm not going to let you in.  And it could lead to something more than was expected or intended. So I realize all of you, this is a big deal. I'm not suggesting that you do it. I brought it to your attention because it concerns me because we are so vulnerable visibly and so close to the street. But I'll leave it to you. Thank you. Thank you. Did somebody else have a question or comment for the auditor? Doug, thanks so much for joining us. And next we'll turn to our state treasurer, Beth Pierce. And I'd be remiss if I didn't congratulate her on a re-election since I've been here. Thank you. I don't want to single out anyone for non-congratulations. Jim Condos and I worked together for years in the Senate. I might not congratulate you. Okay. And all of you as well in terms of your re-election and those who've been elected for the first time, thank you very much for your service. I always say you get these incredible office, great staff, incredible pay, all the perks in a legislature. You folks work very hard for not a number of great things there, except for the work. And I appreciate all the work that you do. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. As I tell people, my major current is a parking space, which is no longer used right now. Yeah, there you go. So I would also support the bill. I think that it's very important. I think about our office and the Attorney General's office. And when I leave sometimes in the evening hours, it's a little dark. I see that the lights are still on in the AG's office. So I have some concerns. I guess what I would echo with Doug is the windows, not so much, I don't think it's as much in our office there, but I do get nervous about the parking lot and the proximity. So you might say, I get the hospital when you're parking and barely in sight of the building. I've experienced the same thing. But maybe within certain proximity to the building that you might want to consider because it can be a little unsettling. I think that it's very, very important to protect our employees. Obviously, we're all concerned about that. Our office has a great deal of public contact. We have the retirement division and folks come in and out for that. We have unclaimed property. And sometimes you have some stresses. People are looking at retirement. I do remember many years ago, it was before I was treasurer, and I've been treasurer since 2003, that someone came in and did have a gun on his person. And that concerns me. It can get a little tense there. This is not a person entering, but our staff has actually had to counsel two people on the phone that were contemplating suicide. And by the way, they counseled them very well, waited for the police to show it up, and it was a good outcome. But there are stresses, and I get concerned about that as we look to protect employees, whether it's social services. I used to be in another state, an administrative services officer, and had to get additional security at different occasions for social workers who had made some decisions that angered folks. So I think that having those protections for public employees, perhaps as I said, a perimeter around the building might deal with that. I think about daycare as well. And so this isn't my field. So I apologize on going a little off the reservation on that. But in terms of the grounds, you can shoot from another area that isn't the playground and put children at risk. So I do worry about that as well. And I have one clarifying question, and I'm sure that the Ledge Council clarified it, and I just got it wrong. But when you talk about public use, you do have use in facilities that are leased. And I wanted to make sure that they were covered as well as facilities that are owned. And again, I think that again, parking lots are within certain range of the building might be something you want to consider. And even at that, I do support the bill. I think you folks of Ledge Council have done a great job. There's obviously some things that have to be clarified and working through. That's what you folks do, and you do a great job with that. But I do support the bill. Thank you. I just wanted to one clarifying comment for me. Trying to, it's always bothered me. In Bennington, we have a state office building. And so everyone that enters that building to go to any state office within that building, except for probationary parole, has to go through a metal detector. So they're protected very well as far as you tend in terms of that. But if I go to Springfield to the state office building, there is none. So it's a completely different setup.  And so when you talk about state employees and some of the problems you've seen, when I go into the pavilion, I have to go through, at least check in with security and to get to certain areas of more security. So when I go into your office, I get more security than if I go into Doug Hoffer's office. I just merely point that out that we already have these inequities within the system. Several years ago, Senator, I remember the governor's office before the changes that we made, and we have made good changes. And I appreciate that. And I think they should be in every building. I think there should be panic buttons at the reception area if they're not there already. But I do remember that protesters made it all the way up to the governor's office when we did not have those provisions. And I get concerned about folks, again, folks that are on the front lines in particular, that have made decisions that don't necessarily, you know, the person involved, such as social services, may not agree with and the tragedies that you could have there.  And that there are, I believe he said, a hospital is a rule as well. Well, you know, rules don't have the same level of enforcement.  But, you know, the attempt is more likely when it's a rule and with very, very little consequences. I saw that, you know, the issue of trying to look at my notes here. But the issue of, you know, you can do if they refuse to, you know, some type of criminal action. But generally speaking, it's, you know, you can't bring it in. The rule is there. But I think it needs more enforcement. And I would agree wholeheartedly, Senator, that we need to make sure that the security in every single building is adequate. I think we made improvements in the Pavilion since that time. And we need to do that in other buildings and protect our state employees, because many of them are at risk in the types of jobs they do. And I think it's important to do that. And the last comment I'll make is I remembered an event, as I was talking, back 12 years, 10 years ago, 12 years ago in Colorado, where somebody made it all the way to the governor's office and had a gun. And unfortunately, it was a tragic event in terms of the individual with the gun. He was shot and killed. But they made it very, very close to the governor's office. And, you know, I think that a good review of protections in every office and department. Some folks work late, by the way. So I think the grounds are important. You know, when I leave the office, as I said, I do see the lights on in the AG's office many, many times. And I'm sure the lights are on in the auditor's office as well. So you got a lot of hardworking state employees, not just us, but, you know, whether it's people in Jim's office that do regulatory work, whether it's social workers, we need to protect all of our people. So that'll be that's the end of my testimony, sir. And thank you very much. Thank you, Senator White has a question. No, I just have a comment that we have a couple bills. Well, I don't they're not bills yet, but because government operations deals with state employees, we have a whole hearing on safety and security of the employees. And that would imply the buildings themselves. So it isn't prohibiting guns or anything. But we're talking about how do we how do we provide safety and security for our employees. So we are taking that up. I appreciate that, Senator, because I think it's very, very important. And you know, I mentioned some examples, but there are others. And we hate to put our employees at risk for doing a good job, a great job. And thank you again for that. Letting me know that. Um, finally, Senator, Secretary Jim Condo, Secretary of State, congratulations on your tough reelection battles. Mr. Secretary, I'm glad you made it through. Thanks very much, Senator. It wasn't a landslide that you're usually used to. It was close enough. Let me just start out by saying that I think the only two statewide constitutional officers that are not protected in this way are the auditor's office in my office. We're both on the complex, but we're outside of the state house. We're outside of the pavilion building. I think we've had several instances over the last few years of threats we had, and this had nothing to do with elections. We had one, actually more than one, where we had to issue, have a TRO, temporary restraining order issued, because someone had called up not at our office, but at one of our least offices and said, I told the receptionist, if I were you, I wouldn't be. He was a licensee, and he said, if I were you, I wouldn't be in your office tomorrow when I show up. We had, based on number of calls that this person had with us interactions, we asked for and received a TRO. We also sent the state police down to look, talk to the guy to find out if, if, you know, what his intentions were. It really came to the forefront this year. Shortly after the election, we were getting some nasty emails and phone calls prior to the election, but it really ramped up after the election. I received one text message, in fact, that said I was going to be in handcuffs soon for my role, that we had voicemails which were reported. All of this has been reported to both the FBI, US attorneys, and Department of Public Safety and the VIC. The voicemails that we received, frankly, were put at bluntly vulgar. They were intimidating. They were, I would say, at this point, it was considered indirect threats, but, you know, things like they're bringing back the firing squad and you should be ready, that type of stuff. I think that we've always had some threats, but this really ramped up this year, and we had quite a few after the election, as I said. We also administer the Safe at Home program, which is the address confidentiality program. We were the third state in the country to enact it back around 2001, I think, and it's a very important program where anywhere between 150 to 200 individuals are and it can be men, women, or children are on that list. It's a protected list. It's kept in a safe and they use our address as their legal address, even for voting purposes. We know where they live and we can forward them their ballot, but it's called a blind ballot, so there is no way to distinguish who it is. We've had several instances where, in just a few years ago, I had a case where the person who manages that Safe at Home program called me on the phone and said, hey, I got this guy on the phone who's being pretty persistent and wants me to give him the name of a woman and her daughter and where they're located because he wants to do a welfare check. He says he's law enforcement, but he's in Massachusetts, so I said, fine, send it up to me. He gets on the phone and he said, I'm in law enforcement in Massachusetts and I understand how these programs work. It's necessary that I get access to the information that I'm looking for. I said to him, well, as I said, if you're familiar with the program, then you know that I can't give that information out without a court order or our state law enforcement approving it. His comment was, okay, I'll send you the court order. Well, after a week, I hadn't received it. He called and I think he thought, I think he thought Vermont was a big place because he was shocked when he got a hold of me again and I said to him that I had not received this court order. He said, well, I've got it right here. I can read it to you and I said, no, that's not good enough. I need a copy of the court order. Something in the call just didn't register right and so I called state police. They sent someone down to do a welfare check and it turns out that this guy was indeed a law enforcement officer from Massachusetts, but the person he was looking for was his strange wife and daughter and he was trying to find them. This is the kind of stuff that we have to deal with out of our office and I don't own any guns today, but I have in the past, I grew up with guns. I certainly recognize the right to have guns, but I think we have to be careful when we're saying that this building is exempt, but this one isn't. So I think there needs to be some consistency. So from that standpoint, and based on what has happened over the last two to three weeks, I support the bill. Thank you, Jim. All right. Questions for Jim? I'd just like to thank you for bringing up the Save at Home program. Actually, you remember working with then Secretary of State Markets on that bill. Came through this committee. I think Senator Nick remembers the work on that bill. It was really groundbreaking at the time because we didn't have too many. I think there was only one other state at the time that we were working on it to make somebody that used it. I think it was either Oregon or Washington was the only other states that were involved. But I'm glad to hear that it's been successful and remains an integral part of your office. We don't often hear much about it, but it's nice to hear that. Senator Benning had a question or comment. So, Jim, I'm hearing your testimony and some thoughts are going through my head. I appreciate the fact that this bill is attempting to protect government employees because I'm one of them. On the other hand, as you're speaking about being careful about what buildings you're trying to protect, there isn't anybody, with the exception of DCF workers, there isn't anybody I can think of that is more subject to potential harm than a divorce attorney from the spouse on the other side. And there is certainly an argument to be made that people in those kinds of situations are in just as much danger as the folks that this bill is trying to address. And I don't know where to draw the lines, but your first comments about who threatened you, were any of those people ever charged with a crime? No, they weren't. I think it's still an open investigation. The FBI has a U.S. attorney, as well as the VIC, and stay pleased. But my understanding is that the wording was just right.  But the wording was just right, that they didn't cross the line for a direct threat. But I'm telling you, I can't give this information out. It's not public information. It's confidential because it's under investigation. But I will tell you that if you read these things, and then you see what was said at the national level in Congress, I would submit to you that these comments were worse than those comments that you saw in Congress. And I agree with you, Senator. I don't know where to draw the line. We have a facility that's in lease space in downtown Montpelier. It's us and another regulatory agency. There's my office just across the street. I'm considered part of the capital complex, as is Auditor Hoffer. We're considered part of the capital complex. Where do we draw this line? I don't know. I do know the state house is protected, and I know the pavilion is protected. I'm not sure after that. Okay, thanks. Senator Zier. Yeah, I just want to make one comment that we've been basically talking about in the building. Some people think this build ends firearms at protests. And I don't think this particular build does. That may be a great idea or a horrible idea. But I want to make clear that that's not what this build does. It only is if you were to carry the fire. Currently, it's inside the building unless you're protesting a child there. I can't think of who was first. Senator White or Senator White? I just was going to say that I think that we're conflating two different issues here. And they're kind of related, but they are different issues. We are looking at how to provide security and safety for our state employees. And that might be cameras and parking lots. It might be having a sheriff's deputy at the entrance to the building because just the presence sometimes of law enforcement calms things down. It might be there are different ways to provide security and safety for state employees. And we're looking at that very closely around how do we do that and try to do it uniformly. But here we're talking about something very specific, which is carrying a gun inside of a building. That's what we're talking about here. And it is a protection for the employees. But I believe it goes beyond that. And it's why does someone need to carry a gun inside a daycare center or inside the state house? So I think that we're getting these issues, although they're related, really kind of bottled up here by talking about the security of our state employees and the safety of them in all places. And we are dealing with that. So I just wanted to... Right now, we're hearing from the constitutional officers. And so I think that's part of why we're hearing about state employees. I want to tell you, I'm a frequent visitor at hospitals, emergency rooms recently. And I don't understand why someone with all the mental health problems that our hospitals are now taking care of in the emergency room and other parts of their facilities. For me, if this bill was just about hospitals, me, that's a no brainer of what's happening. You have opiates inside your hospital. You have all kinds of things going on. We had somebody shot and killed at Dartmouth-Hitchcock, which obviously many Vermonters use. So I want to make clear that our discussions here are not just about state employees, they're about dangers within other facilities. Most people thought that child care facilities were covered when we did the schools, but they were not. And so that's why they're included. But I just don't want to have us just focus on state employees here. Senator Bruce? Yeah, I want to second what you both just said, Senator White and Senator Sears. I did also want to stress something, which is without putting it too much on national politics, I do want to say that over the last number of years, you had the President of the United States broadly encouraging groups that see themselves as in opposition to government, and encouraging them to go forward and assert their will, which translated into people going into state houses, taking over state houses, ultimately plotting against government officials. I think when Secretary Kondos talks about these threats getting more intense in the last couple of years, that's part of what we're seeing is a radicalization that has been, in a sense, top down and produced via the internet. So that's one of the reasons why I think it's more common now to turn on your TV and see that people have gone to a government installation to try to intimidate or pressure an arm of government to do or not do something. And again, that's why I take Joe's point about threats in his profession. I'm a teacher on a college campus. There are threats in my profession too. My first cell phone was because I had a student writing short stories in which I was brutally murdered. And so there was a SWAT team put together to protect me from this person. And I was given my first cell phone. So there were threats everywhere in our society. Some of them come from firearms. But this bill was crafted very, very narrowly to try to produce common agreement in the House and the Senate. And so I would go back to that intention. Thank you. And Senator Benning has a comment that Senator Nick... I just wanted to... I want to make one... If we're done with Secretary Condos, we might want to let him... Right now, he's the witness. And so we're kind of talking around him. So I don't want to... The conversation is fine. I just... Are they for Senator Cond... Senator? They were not. Okay. No. I just thank you so much for your testimony. You're welcome. Appreciate it very much. Thanks for being here. Senator Benning. I just want to say first, I appreciate this conversation. It is a conversation that needs to be fleshed out as much as possible. Jeanette, when you ask the question, why do they need to be in ex-building? From my perspective, I don't see that as the fulcrum. There is a place where you have to start from when you make an argument. And in my case, I start with the fact that it's a constitutional right. They may not need to have a gun in a given place, but they actually have a constitutional right to have one. And when you move to put any kind of conditions on that, I begin to get very leery that we are on a whack-a-mole mission that eventually leads to complete erosion of that right. And I'm not suggesting that this is an exclusive attempt to do that, but I am very cautious when we use the start point for the conversation. Why do they need to have it here or there? Come back and say that I appreciate this conversation. I think it's a great one to have. Thanks. You're right. I'm muted. Senator. So I just would like to say I'm certainly concerned about some of the facilities, but more so on the issue of buildings and looking at that and what that would mean. I mean, we really need to take a look at this carefully. I think of truck drivers on the interstate who sleep in their trucks or parked there and wherever they are parked are subject to robberies frequently. And many of them carry a gun on their person. And of course, they'd be going into the rest area to use the facility. And I don't think, you know, they're from all kinds of states where things may be different. And I don't think we're going to have signs at the border saying if you go in a rest area, you can't have your gun on your person. I mean, I think there's a lot of things we need to look at carefully when we're talking about buildings and what it means. So just to, I agree with Jeanette, the town garage and all those things. You just need to look at this carefully. Well, I think when we say government building, yeah, I agree. We need to look at it carefully in the hand again, going back to my hospital. You can't have tobacco either. It's a tobacco, the sign says tobacco free campus and fire on free campus. They've made it pretty clear. Neither on the grounds. And every time I see the sign when I walk into the state house, no firearms beyond this point. I somewhat chuckle for myself is how are we going to enforce it? Because you and I both know colleagues who have carried firearms in the state house and haven't used them luckily. I remember sitting across from one in finance when we're dealing with Act 60 and wondered what would happen if I really. Times were different. They were, but I mean, it wasn't an open, but it was certainly clear. It's underway. So I just wanted to respond to Joe. I realize that and when I was trying to think of that, that wasn't it didn't come out right. But I just wanted to make the differentiation here between this bill and protecting the safety and security of our of our employees, which is can be very different than just carrying a gun. I mean, they're two different issues, although they're related. And I just didn't want us to get so far into the weeds about protecting the security of our employees that we lost sight of what this bill is really about. I appreciate that, Jeanette. And I think if we're going to be able to reach consensus on this, we have to be clear and very specific about the reasons behind each section of it and what it's attempting to do, because there's lots of people out there already arguing that we're on a mission for an overall attack on the Second Amendment in the 16th Article Vermont Constitution. So if we're going to arrive at consensus, we've got to be very clear, very specific and direct on why each facility we're trying to protect needs that protection in a way that to some people will be overriding their constitutional right. But again, I want to point out that in Bennington, it's different than other state office buildings where if I want to go to the Economic Services Office of the Department of Children and Families or to the Unemployment Office of the Department of Labor, I have to go through a metal detector. And if I went to the same offices in Springfield or other town, other communities, I don't have to. So there was already kind of an incongruity there where certain state offices are more protected than others. It will be the saddest day in my life when we get to the point where I know and think we're going when the doors of our statehouse become an armed obstacle to anybody wanting to come in the doors. And I know that's the direction we're moving in. But that is such a historical mark in time for me that I feel like I've got to analyze everything I possibly can from a perspective of what are we giving up in the long term in order to make protections in the short term. As chair of the Senate of the Senate Institutions Committee, Senator Brew. Just to respond to what Joe just said, I view this bill as allowing us to continue our tradition of not having armed guards at the doors or metal detectors. I think this is a very limited common sense way of saying look to everybody we want this to be the people's house where everybody can discuss very problematic and hot button issues without having to worry for their safety. So it doesn't arm anybody, it tries to disarm people to keep the statehouse open and free. And I just wanted to say, Mr. Chair, I'm delighted with this discussion. None of this is written in stone and I'm pleased to hear Joe talk about consensus because that would be my hope is that the five of us could reach agreement on a bill. No, it would be good. So what I'm going to do is use my executive authority and take a break until 20 minutes of 11. So that will get us on line to be finished by 11 45. So why don't we take a break until again 1035. By the way, tomorrow do we have we have John Campbell next but is he online? John's here. So John Campbell is next on the witness list that I have. So John is representing the Vermont State's Attorneys and Sheriff's Department. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, senators. And we wholeheartedly support the bill. I think there's a couple of issues that when you do go into redrafting that you should definitely address. One of the first ones is the an issue that actually we've spoken about in the past when we've had similar discussions. And that is the knowing the issue of whether the person knowingly possesses the firearm. So in this version, you do not have that. Whereas if you look at the 40404, I believe it is involving possessing of firearms and school property, you'll see that it's there's a knowing standard there. So that's something I think you should definitely take a look at. The second one, again, you've many of you have already identified and that is the definition of the what the public building is. Frankly, I think it's extremely vague the way, you know, where essential government functions occur. I think that you're going to probably have to come up with something a little different because if you actually even if you look at it, doing some research on it, you'll see that it's often discussed in some cases where it is a vague definition and often given open to several different interpretations. So being that it would be very difficult for us to prosecute. And also one of the things I think Senator White identified this is initially is that there are a lot of leased buildings. In fact, the state's attorneys, we have seven of our buildings are leased from private entities. So if you're trying to cover that, you're probably going to have to deal somewhat somehow with that issue. Overall, I think if you go back, if you look at the at the language from the school bill, you'll probably have a really good foundation in which to work this and especially if you want to deal with it with if there's a intent to go in to harm somebody into one of these buildings, you know, that is dealt with in the in the 4004. So you might want to look at that. In closing, I think it's really a good bill because you know, nowadays we are in a very tumultuous time. You know, one of the other things that hasn't been brought up that I think should be is the fact that by doing this and especially in public buildings or in hospitals and daycare centers, you're going to avoid confusion because a lot of times, you know, if law enforcement officers call to a scene on something and you have people who have, you know, weapons out or weapons on their side, there could be a confusion that you definitely do not want to to find yourself in that position. So I think it's overall, it's a very good bill. I laud the senators for introducing it and I wish it the best of luck. I appreciate you bringing up the knowledge and standard because I was absolutely thinking back to the experience I had about a year ago going through TSA and I had my money clip on me and I forgot there was a knife in the money clip. TSA picked it up and took the money clip. So I lost my money clip, but I certainly had no knowledge that I was carrying a knife on an airplane. Obviously it was only still. The point is that I didn't have to take a knife. That's a good, good idea. And I think has there been any prosecutions that you're familiar with or violating on the schools or courts? I know, not that I know of, but I tell you, we haven't been short on threats though, especially lately. You know, we've had several of our, several of our deputy state's attorneys and one of the essays that have been physically threatened, which, you know, is on, one of them is under current investigation or the individuals being currently being investigated. But I'll check and see if we've had some. I'd have to, I didn't have a chance to pull the sitting state's attorneys. If you could, that would be helpful to know if there's been any prosecutions and any difficulties they've had with the current laws regarding the schools. I know that that about two years ago, I went over to the Supreme Court and Justice Rybe, Chief Justice Ryber and Justice Eaton, I met with them about courthouse security and it was amazing the stuff that they've taken off of people coming into courtrooms.   It's amazing what people come in. In fact, one of the, you know, the, the craziest things is are the people who come in with drugs on them.  Like, yeah, well, I think I forgot to leave my cocaine home today. So it never ceases to amaze me the intellectual ability or capability or capacity of some of these individuals, but. Any questions for Executive Director Campbell? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, John. Bye bye now. Bye now. Our next witness is Matthew Valerio, the Defender General. Good morning. Good morning, Matt. Thank you for having me. I, this is an area of the soup I tend not to dip my toe into. Have not traditionally testified on gun related legislation. Um, this one had a couple of nuances to it that I guess warranted some discussion and I figured I would take a look at it. Um, and you asked, so I'll give you an opinion. Um, the, uh, one of the things that I think we have to look at is the context of what we, what we are dealing with. And I did some research on this over the last couple of days. The estimate is that there are 393 million civilian owned firearms in the United States. And that's enough for one, one for every man, woman and child in the nation and still have 67 million guns left over. And that's a stat from the Graduate Institute of International Development. Um, and, uh, I looked at a couple of different areas and some have plus or minus 20 million on either side. Bottom line is we have a lot of guns out there. Um, and, uh, oddly enough, and, and I don't know how, why this is the case. And I think I actually think part of it is that, uh, Vermont doesn't have, uh, the same sort of registration requirements for firearms. Vermont is ranked very low for the number of registered firearms in the nation, um, anywhere from 47th to 50th, depending upon which list you look at. Um, but the, the biggest issue is that there's, there are so many unregistered firearms in the nation as a whole. And in Vermont, um, that nobody has a real handle on how many are actually out there. When I look at any kind of new proposed criminal justice, um, initiative, and particularly one that creates a new crime, I look at it in three different ways. Number one, are there any constitutional rights that are implicated by the proposed criminal law? Number two, are there current laws on the books that cover the activity that is sought to be prohibited? Um, number three, will the activity that is sought to be prohibited, achieve the purpose of the bill? And the fourth thing is, and I look at this in every situation, will the bill make things worse for anyone, um, inadvertently sought to be, who are sought to be protected by the bill? And this one is, uh, this is what I've come up with. Um, obviously there are Second Amendment and Vermont Article 16 issues that arise, whatever you start talking about, firearms in Vermont, but I don't see them as a, as an impediment to the sort of regulation that is sought here. I do, um, in general have a concern for the erosion of, uh, the, these constitutional rights just as I would for any constitutional right.  Um, and you may well, um, but as long as they're both, uh, the, the chief law of the land, you've got to embrace them all. Um, nevertheless, in this particular instance, I don't see either one of these as an impediment to making this sort of limitation on those rights, uh, because the rights are not, um, carte blanche, um, that you can possess a firearm anywhere you, anywhere in any way you want to. Um, where I start to bog down on this is with the other questions that I ask and then with some of the, um, research that I've done outside of, um, outside of the books and I, I want to tell you in advance that my wife is a director of a preschool and daycare in, um, Proctor Vermont that has 50 plus kids in it, um, every day. Um, and, uh, whether it, you know, not just during the school year, but, but all year round. Um, and, uh, that informs some of my opinions as well because my wife likes to inform my opinions. I might imagine. Um, so are the question, the second question I ask is there are their current laws on the books that cover the activity that's sought to be prohibited here. And I think there are. Um, if you recall, just a couple of years ago, um, the legislature updated 13 VSA, um, 4003 carrying dangerous weapons. Um, a person who carries a dangerous weapon or a deadly weapon with the intent to injure another shall be imprisoned for not more than two years and find not more than 2000. Um, and, uh, it can be a 10 year, uh, felony if that person intends to harm multiple persons. Um, in my view, the, and just kind of looking this at this in space, it, if it's not the carrying of a firearm that's the problem, it's the intent and the desire of the person carrying the firearm that is the problem. You know, if, uh, uh, and, uh, fourth, uh, 13 VSA, 4003, um, seems to hit that nail on the head. Of course, Vermont has also has a long standing, uh, reckless endangerment statute under 13 VSA 10, 25, where a person who recklessly engages in conduct, which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury, um, shall be imprisoned for not more than a year or find a thousand dollars. Recklessness is in, in danger is presumed with where the person knowingly points a firearm in the direction of another, whether the firearm is loaded or not. And that is activity that is, um, obviously more severe than merely carrying a firearm, but it depends upon the conduct of the person who, who has the firearm. Um, 4003, however, talks about the person and whether they do anything or not, what their intent is, um, and you have to divine that intent from the totality of the circumstances that are, um, that are present. There are other lesser, um, you know, fine, just fine only type, uh, prohibitions on, on firearms that, uh, that are also, and we've talked about the ones involving schools and the like, um, but these seem to apply to every place. Um, and so, uh, I, I bring them up. The next question is also one where I tend to get a little bogged down, which is, will the activity that sought to be prohibited achieve the purported purpose of the bill? Um, probably not. Um, the person who wants to use a firearm or carry a firearm to cause a problem in a, um, preschool daycare government building or hospitals not going to be deterred by the law. Um, just as they aren't, um, you know, in the, in the sobel case when, uh, you know, if you're not deterred by a life in prison situation, you are not going to be deterred from carrying a weapon. The bottom line is that these statutes for the individuals who seek to cause problems for people, um, probably do not deter, and actually there's no evidence that they do deter the conduct, um, that is sought to be prohibited. Um, the other, the next question is, will the bill make things worse for anybody who's sought to be protected? Because some of these things they get passed and they don't really do anything, but they don't harm anybody, um, either, and, um, they make a statement that's important to make, and we go with that. Um, you know, one of the comments that came up in, in, uh, in, uh, trying to figure this out is, you know, are the only people who, without the ability to respond to threat at a daycare that or government building or hospital are the people who end up working there, uh, because they don't have the ability to defend themselves. Um, one of the things that, that, uh, um, in speaking to my wife about the daycare and preschool situations is some of the issues that we've already been brought up here about the, the, what about the pick up and drop off area? What about when they're picking up their kid at the playground? What about, um, you know, the general area of the, of the building? Um, and again, I think Senator Benning brings up the appropriate issue, which is that there are many individuals who have a firearm in a, in a rack in their vehicle or, um, in the glove box of their vehicle or the like and come to pick up, uh, pick up their kids at daycare.  And that was another, an issue that was brought up. Um, so how you define these areas, um, is one way of looking at it. And the other way I think of looking at it is whether or not the firearm is loaded. And, uh, you might look at this in terms of, um, that you shall not possess a, a loaded firearm at a prohibited location. Um, the, one of the other issues that brought up was brought up when I was discussing this with a number of different people is concerns about those who are licensed, um, like our licensed armed private investigators, for example, who do work for the Defender General's office. We don't have anybody who is a, I don't believe we have anybody anymore who is on staff, who is a licensed armed private investigator, but the Defender General's office routinely uses, um, individuals who are licensed armed, um, through the Secretary of State's office.  It's not easy to get. Um, it's very easy to get a, uh, uh, you know, obviously for an individual to get a firearm if they want to, but it's not easy at all to become a licensed armed private investigator. Um, and their concerns about their, you know, they have their, some have their weapons on them all the time, just like law enforcement would, and, um, perhaps go in and out of courthouses and, and, and the like, uh, doing whatever business they do or other government, uh, buildings. And that came up as a, uh, an issue as well. Um, one of the things that informs my testimony to some degree is that I was on Governor Scott's violence prevention task force a few years ago. Um, and one of the things that became pretty well recognized when you're talking about actual safety, um, more criminal laws and prohibitions on weapons were not going to be the way to increase um, public safety. And much of that report focused on preparations, um, and responses and preparations. They talked about preparations and security in buildings, um, talked about preparing and, and to be able to escape in the event of a, uh, an armed threat. Um, also talked about preparation to be able to defend yourself in the event of an armed threat. Um, and then preparing what to do if you can't escape or defend yourself, um, the ability to shelter in place in particular areas that might be secure. Um, and then the more general areas of prevention, um, relative to, uh, um, intelligence information, um, recognizing who the threats might be, um, working with a mental health, um, system to identify, um, and do what individuals might be a threat to themselves or others and getting them the appropriate treatment. Um, and also understanding that you can't discover, um, every threat. And so your preparation, as far as security, escape, uh, defense and shelter in place, um, are important things to be able to develop. Um, within state government, uh, my office has, uh, multiple levels of security, um, similar to the, to the attorney general's office. Basically, you have to be buzzed in with a card or through the camera, um, with, with someone at the, at the front desk. Um, and, uh, you know, we've had at various times threats and, uh, um, actual attacks of public defenders across the state. Um, and so this is not something that we are, um, that we're immune to or unfamiliar with. Bruce has a question. Uh, thanks, Matt. I appreciate your comments. Um, am I, am I wrong or am I misunderstanding you, but couldn't the places where you get bogged down, as you put it, wouldn't, wouldn't that also apply to the prohibition in courthouses? All of those objections? Yes. Okay. The difference, the difference at, at those places and one of the things that I did note, and I, I actually wrote it at a different spot here and I didn't say it, some of these places like, like courthouses, um, and even the state house, um, there is armed law enforcement present, um, to be able to respond to, um, any, uh, a threat. Now it may not be sufficient. Um, and it might not, you know, it may not be effective, but like at a daycare, you're not going to have, um, you know, armed security present. Um, we're at the state house and at, uh, um, courthouses. Um, and I, and I do know that there's also security at, uh, obviously at hospitals, but I actually just don't know whether or not they aren't, um, to be able to respond to a threat. But, but in general, what I mean is, um, you talked about the, the idea that it wouldn't stop someone who was intent on doing harm. Um, it would, there were other laws that, uh, in your mind cover it. That would be the same as in courthouses. Um, so I, the reason why I, um, I am commenting is that it seems like your, your view of what the intent of the bill is is different than mine. So my intent is not, um, to provide 100 percent certainty that these places never again have a gun come into them. I understand it would fail in that sense, but as it stands now, if someone carries a gun into a hospital or if they carry a gun into a childcare center and someone sees the gun and asks them to leave, there's, they have no recourse. A police officer can't get rid of that gun. Um, and the person can stand on their rights to have the gun in the environment. Um, that can happen in a courthouse because we've prohibited it by statute. Same with a school. You can't stand on your right to have a gun in the school. So part of the idea is preventing people from bringing it in. The other half of it is once you've determined that somebody has a gun on that property, the statute, if we passed it, would give them the right to escort that person off the property. And then obviously there are questions about how and when or if you could prosecute them, but you would be able to, a law enforcement officer could get them out. Um, I think it was Doug Hoffer mentioned, oh no, it was Eric Fitzpatrick mentioned that he had discussed with Chief Romy, what would you do if somebody had a gun in the state house? I've asked Chief Romy as well. And what he says is I would try to reason with that person. But if someone is standing on their right to have a gun in the building, reason may not well work. So that's why the bill comes forward. So I do think personally that other statutes don't cover this and that the intent is a bit different from some of the things you're, you're, you're objecting to. I guess the question I have is whether or not you could get to the same thing without creating a new crime. You know, can you, can you make a civil prohibition that would allow law enforcement to say, look, you got to get that gun out of here and give the law enforcement the right to escort the person from the building, even if they haven't waste some intent to do harm or given any sort of indication that they were going to do harm to anybody. And by the way, I'm, I, at the end of my testimony, I basically was going to say, I'm not taking really any position on the bill. What I'm doing is raising issues for you to consider in what you do going forward. You know, they're, you know, I understand that there are times to pass bills that in and of themselves aren't going to have a major effect on, on anything. And these might be some of those types. Any, Matt, or the question from that Senator Benning and then Senator White. First to comment, I, if we are passing this bill because people are intimidated, that opens up an unending list of potential places where intimidation alone brings in similar statutory moves. And I think the overall intent of the bill is to make sure no actual violence occurs in these locations. I don't want to get onto the slippery slope of saying somebody, because they're intimidated by the mere presence of a weapon. That's rationale for us to pass legislation like this. It would just be an unending list where people happen to be, if they're intimidated, we whack them all in new legislation. Matt, I have a request specifically from you, you were reading your analysis, I think it were four or possibly five sentences. And I was very struck by that, not just for this bill, but for all legislation I like to consider in the future. I'm wondering if you have that written down and can you send it to us. There, I believe there were four, possibly five sentences, and I wasn't able to write fast enough as you were testifying. I don't know if you've got them written down, but I'd like to have a copy. I have them really just in note form for me. I don't have them in any kind of presentation form, but if you want, I can probably clean it up and get it to you. I'd really like to have that. Thanks. Senator White. So, two things. First of all, our chief is Romy I, like Romeo, but it's Romy I, just a correction there.  And I don't, I don't know how that works. I don't know the. Well, what you do is say that it's a civil violation to do this, and you attach a fine to it as opposed to making it a crime. Oh, and so it's a prohibited activity, which would allow the law enforcement to remove the person from the, from the premises with the, with the firearm, as opposed to charging them with a criminal offense for the mere possession of the weapon. So is like a speeding ticket is a civil prohibition, right? Correct. I mean, up to a certain point. In fact, and I have to, excuse me if I, I was going through, there's actually under, and I, we have all kinds of these spotty gun prohibition type statutes and 13 VSA 4011 is a. Hey, right. That's a, well, that's a fine only. That's not a. Gun Campbell, you're, you might want to mute yourself. Thank you.  And you might even express intent that the legislative intent is to, you know, keep the guns out of the these particular places in the law enforcement could escort somebody, you know, out that kind of thing without creating a crime. To me, the crime is the intent to do harm to somebody, not the person who inadvertently has a, or even purposefully, but with no will intent shows up and is trying to do business. Thank you. Thank you. Can I, can I just ask quickly in terms of the courthouse prohibition that that is a statutory crime? You know, in the, in the old days, it used to be that it was by order of the presiding judge, because the judge has the right to control the courthouse.  Yeah. Yeah. It's a, it's a crime under the statute that Matt referenced. Okay. So I guess what I'm saying is I, I think, you know, often, uh, gun rights people talk about creating a patchwork of confusing laws. And I think if we were to make some prohibitions on locations civil and some criminal, we would go down that path toward, first of all, weakening this bill in a substantial way, but second of all, creating, for reasons I don't really understand, a distinction between a prohibition going into a courthouse where you spend a great deal of your time and are protected by that statute, uh, and a hospital or, um, a government building like the state house where we spend our time. So I, I would favor keeping them all at the, at the statutory level. If we, if we, if we do this, I, I don't think it would help to, um, to weaken it to that extent. So that's more a comment really than a, than a question. Well, I'm not, I'm not against, uh, changing the courthouse prohibition to a civil violation. Well, your, your logic would, if you applied all of your logic, that's where we would go, right? Because that statute in your mind is, is unnecessary and ineffective. I think you're right. You know, the courthouse does screen people with mental detectors and armed law enforcement at the entry points, um, of each side. No, but they do that based on their statutory authority to do so. Yeah. And they also have inherent authority to control the courthouse, um, based upon administrative order and rule, which is constitutionally based. So, you know, the, before there was ever a statute to, uh, prohibit, uh, firearms in the court courthouse, the courts or deadly weapons, knives, anything else. There were, um, the presiding judge would issue, uh, an executive, an, an, an order that says that none of these things are prohibited here and the violation would be contempt of court. So, you know, I, I understand, uh, where you're going with this and I, and it, uh, I'm just bringing up some issues that, uh, to, uh, consider going forward. Um, I don't have strong feelings about this, um, but I think that there are defensible positions that have not been heard from other witnesses that, uh, um, are worth considering. Could I ask Senator Sears? Yeah, go ahead. So, again, I'm trying to, um, look at the difference here between a crime and a civil offense and both are, are, um, enforceable. And so whether it was a civil offense or a crime to bring a firearm into these places, they could, it could be enforced and the person could be removed, but the, the penalty is different. Is, is that right? Yeah. With a civil offense, there's no ability for, uh, jail time or probation. Right. But there's, it's, there's a potential fine and there's a, um, the fine could be a thousand dollars, but there was, yeah. Ten thousand dollars. It doesn't, you can have big civil fines. They, they, right. Right. But, so the, the real difference here is, no, but the real difference is the, the jail time. Right. Jail time. But they're both enforceable. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes. Okay. Um, now, okay. Joe, just a quick question for 003. Was that in title 13? Yes. Thank you. Other questions for Matt? Matt, thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony and the clarity. Um, uh, does seem to have muddied some waters. That's what I, your testimony, that's, uh, well, it's what you do. It's what he does. I appreciate that. Uh, Judge Greerson is next on our list. Uh, good morning. Thank you, Senator Judge. And thank the committee for inviting me to, uh, this, testify on this bill. Um, this bill, uh, in, in essence, creating a new crime. As the committee knows, the judiciary does not take a position on policy issues. And this clearly would be a policy decision by, by the committee, by the legislature. What I do testify or offer testimony on is any potential impact on the courts if this bill were enacted. And it's, if the bill wasn't acted, I do not see any impact on the court, on the court process. I think what's interesting, obviously the, the judiciary does not own, um, any of the buildings they occupy, they're either state owned or each of the counties has a county courthouse that would fall under the provisions of this bill. Um, and I think one of the questions, um, that came up an earlier testimony earlier this morning, uh, was the issue of, um, does it apply just to the building itself, the courthouse itself or the exterior of the grounds and the parking lots? And as I was listening to that testimony, I was trying to recall, um, visiting, uh, at one point or another, all of the courts and obviously they all have, uh, parking lots adjoining them, some large, some small, uh, some related only to the business of the court, but in, uh, many of the courthouses, um, for instance in, in Barry, uh, one of the nearest ones, other, uh, folks occupy that building. The, the parking lot itself is relatively small. It's right, obviously adjacent to the, the rear of the courthouse, um, and where, uh, folks in, in custody are brought in, uh, to the courthouse through that parking lot. Um, but that parking lot, as many of them are restricted either to, um, courthouse employees, judges, employees, uh, and, or, um, folks who occupy the building. So I think one of the questions the, the committee needs to give thought to is whether or not this bill, to what extent this bill would also apply to, uh, grounds immediately adjacent, um, to the courthouses and specifically the parking, uh, the parking areas. Um, someone mentioned, uh, Laura Sobell's case and, of course, um, mindful also of, of Matt's, uh, comments with respect to, uh, deterrence or the lack of deterrence, um, she was, um, killed in, in a parking lot. It was in the building across the street from the courthouse, uh, where DCF at the time had their, uh, offices. DCF has now moved into the, the return to the courthouse. Uh, so these issues, um, relate to any number of, uh, occupiers of the courthouse. So I just asked the committee to give thought to, uh, including the grounds or the parking lots, uh, as they relate to courthouse. But beyond that, as I said, the court doesn't take a position, either in opposition to or supporting this bill. Thank you. Senator Benning. Judge, would you agree with Matt's, um, thoughts about 13VSA 4003 already covering the activity that we're talking about? I took another look at it while he was testifying in it, may cover the activity, not necessarily, I mean, this bill seems to be directed to place. Uh, this is a location bill and it seems to me to dovetail or overlap with that statute. I think to the extent that it, it prohibits, that statute prohibits, uh, the firearms, it does the, the question obviously before the committee is, do we extend that to specific places? So my, my last question is most important, having built a lot of model ships when I was a kid. What's that model ship over your shoulder? It's a, uh, I wasn't expecting it to be that much work to figure it out. Well, no, it's been a long time since I looked at it. It's an old Spanish galleon, uh, from 1780. Okay. Don't remember where I got it or exactly why, but it's a great looking piece. And so that's why it's up there. It is. Can I, can I say a question is out of line? No, you can object, Senator. You can object to that question. Yes, you should have objected. And I would have sustained that objection. I think it's called point of order. Point of order. Thank you, Senator, uh, Benning. Are there any other questions from Senator? The committee will disregard the galleon. All right. It wouldn't be the first time the committee's disregarded me. It is interesting to know what people have behind them. And I, I will note that, there's all kinds of things. And I'm, I'm impressed with the curtains and the books and other things behind people. Um, and some of the views that some of our witnesses have are excellent views, but getting back to S 30, um, you, you're probably familiar with all the different, um, things that have been picked up in our courtrooms. Oh, yes. I've seen that display. And generally no charges are brought, correct? It's just confiscating the confiscate, right? Generally, I'm not, yeah. Have there been any, do you know of charges brought? Not to jump to mind, Senator. I've seen that collection and there have been some pretty amazing articles that people try to bring in, but I don't believe they're confiscated at the front front door. Um, and I'm not aware of any, I can, I can double check, but I'm not aware of any if we could find out just if there's been any prosecutions under any of the current laws regarding schools as well as, um, courthouses. Senator White has a question. Thank you. And I apologize for, um, the collapse of my iPad here. And I, so I may have missed, um, Judge, when you, you may have addressed this already. Um, would you just comment on what you see as the difference here, advantages or disadvantages of civil versus criminal? Well, I don't know what you can, I don't know if you can put it in terms of advantages or disadvantages. It's just one is there a different approach to this issue. And, um, I think apart from my opinion of that, I would think what you would want to inquire is, uh, with law enforcement, um, because they're the ones that would, if it's a civil remedy and they would have depends what authority they have. For instance, someone coming into the state house, um, I think was an example someone gave if, if, uh, the, uh, Chief, uh, Chief Romney, I had the authority to go to someone and say, uh, you can't bring that in here. Then the question is to what extent can they take action, uh, civil or otherwise. So I think the question is, is a good one, Senator, probably more appropriate for law enforcement to their reaction, um, as to how they would respond to that in terms of our enforcement, of course, if it's an offense, it's brought by the state's attorney, if it's civil, um, if someone might have the authority to bring it in either as purely civil context or ticket, uh, if it would go to the J.B. So it's just a question on our end on how is that particular law enforced? I think the real question is, what authority, uh, would the, uh, the enforcement folks have to follow through what, what, what is the extent of their authority? Thank you. Hopefully that answers the question. Yeah. Thank you, Judge. Um, stay tuned and, uh, we'll continue our work on this bill. Thank you. Probably next week or the week after. Uh, Chris Bradley is our next and final witness for this morning. And I want to add that if people would like to testify on this bill to either contact myself or, um, Peggy Delaney, the committee assistant, um, and we will take further testimony. I do want to hear from the hospital association, as well as the medical, uh, society and others involved with the hospitals as well as any, probably should hear Peggy from DCF as well that regulate the child care. So I believe that and VLCT and VLCT. I mentioned that earlier. Um, but I believe when I was looked at as a foster home, I had to remove all weapons from all that have a foster child. I would assume that there's similar requirements in the child care. So there's a licensed. There's a locked rule also. I think if somebody does have some, they're required to be locked. So Chris, if, if you would go ahead and hopefully we have enough time to hear from you, uh, we're going to adjourn at 1045. Very good. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Yep. You're coming through fine. My name is Chris Bradley. I'm the president of Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs and in the interest of full disclosure, uh, I am a registered lobbyist with the secretary of state on firearms issues. Um, I think I'd like to start just by thanking all of you, um, for representing Vermont through these incredibly trying times. Zoom is not the intimacy that we usually have in Senate chamber. Uh, yes, I have more leg room here. Uh, but the fact of the matter is that, uh, I, I thank you and, uh, it's, it's tough to persevere. Um, I especially like to thank Mr. Baruth. Um, he, uh, we had a very good conversation on Monday. Um, it's the type of conversation and discussion I think, uh, we need, uh, more often. Um, and especially prior to the creation of bills, uh, I am, I think we're a reasonable people. Um, I guess I, I'm going to start off by, uh, reminding as I usually do, uh, about Vermont status as the safest state in the nation. Uh, we are now the second safest state. We continually either first or second. Uh, we are second to Maine and, uh, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have exceptionally similar firearms laws. Um, the laws that we have stand and rather start contrast, uh, to what we see in, say, New York and Massachusetts, where we see literally double the violent crime rate that is in Vermont. Um, and, and what is the difference between those states, New York and Massachusetts and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, if it's not their firearms laws? So I, I leave that question. Um, firearms, as you know, are part of our culture or integral part of, of many Vermonters lives. Um, and it really represents the ability of Vermonter to do, to defend themselves. Um, I guess, uh, one of the things I'd like to do a deep dive in, and I think, uh, Matt touched upon it. Uh, I think Joe's been taking notes on this. I'd really like to take a look at the crimes and criminal procedures that we have in Title 13 today that seem to address some of these aspects because I kept hearing, uh, threatening behavior or criminal threats or, uh, untoward behavior. Um, and I think we have laws that speak to that. Uh, let's start with, uh, 13 VSA, uh, 10, 23. Uh, that would be the simple assault statute. And I'm quoting, uh, a person is guilty of simple assault if he or she, number three, attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Moving on from that, we have, uh, 10, 24, uh, aggravated assault. I'm mentioning aggravated assault because there's two specific provisions there that exempt a citizen from the aggravated assault statute.  And I mentioned this only because our statutes clearly make provision for self defense and it's not necessarily restricted to where that can occur. Moving on, I take a look at, uh, 10, 20, uh, 13 VSA, 10, 25. I believe that was referenced by Mr. Valerio, uh, reckless endangering of another person. Um, reckless endangering shall be presumed when a person, person knowingly points a firearm at or in the direction of another, whether or not that actor believed the firearm to be loaded and whether or not the firearm was actually loaded or not. Moving on to the next one, we have 4005. If I'm committing a crime and I have a gun, we have a law for that. Moving forward, 4009, negligent use of a gun, a person who carelessly or negligently wounds another person by gunshot shall be imprisoned. Uh, not more than five years or fine $1,000. If I take a look at 4011, uh, aiming a gun at another, any person shall intentionally point or aim any gun pistol or other firearm any toward, uh, or at, uh, towards another except in self defense or lawful discharge shall be punished. Um, moving forward from that, uh, 4017, uh, we have a statute to prohibits felons from having firearms with some very, uh, with restrictions and penalties. Moving forward from that, I come to what we just recently wrestled through, um, in previous years, the, uh, extremist protection order, uh, 4053, if somebody's acting up or acting out, we now have the, the ability to take action on those people. And I guess I'm going to conclude here, if I could, by coming back, uh, is Eric Fitzpatrick still online? You may answer that question, Eric. Yeah. Present. Thank you. I'm, I'm sorry, Eric. Uh, I, I'm, could you take a look at, please, at 13VSA 3705? That would be the unlawful trespass statute. I'm going to quote form it while you look at it. A person shall be in prison for not more than three months or find not more than $500 or both. If without legal authority or the consent of the person in lawful possession, he or she enters or remains on any land or in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by B, signs are placards so designed and situated so as to give reasonable notice. I ask you, Eric, in the case of say a store that doesn't want you to come in, uh, without a shirt on, um, and they place a sign that says shirts are acquired. If a person comes in without a shirt, can law enforcement come in and remove that person? Yes or no? I think there's more of a process involved in the, in the civil trespass prosecutions, but I'd want to look at that a little bit further. Well, I didn't need to put you on. I'm sorry. Yeah, I think it's kind of a, uh, I'm a little troubled. I think what we, let, let Eric research this and this is part of what we could have as a discussion, um, starting markup of the bill. I mean, I'm also wondering why we didn't include, why the sponsors of the bill didn't include other dangerous weapons in the, the definition, similar to what the federal definition is. But, uh, so I want to, you know, Eric said he'll look at that, but I think it's a good question in terms of, uh, I think we need to look at what other laws are available, but I do, you know, if you're a private company, I'll use J.C. Penney, J.C. Penney can make any kind of rules they want about masks, about whatever, and, um, about what can come in. It's the, the government, uh, facilities is where the, um, you know, we're looking at. President Biden, President-elect Biden, I guess he still is until noon time. As I already said, he's going to, um, mandate masks on federal lands and facilities. I understand that. I guess, and I've posed the question, uh, specific to 37 or 5, if a building or any, uh, such as the state house, they have a sign that says no firearms allowed. It does seem to me, uh, that 3705 may apply here, but I'm not going to beat that horse. It may. Chris, I think the important thing is for us as a committee, obviously is to get your opinions on the bill, but also before we pass a bill out of here is to us to make sure there isn't, uh, conflicting law or other laws that already cover the behavior and not, not, we don't want confusion. No, I, I, I understand. I guess, but my, my understanding and what I've been told is that while there's a requirement there, there is no absolute law against, against it, even though the sign says you can't carry a firearm. It's a rule developed by the joint rules committee, I believe whatever said, and that that's as far as that goes. It's not necessarily, um, how enforceable is that rule and how would you enforce that? Those are the questions we have to ask. Well, certainly it's, it's, as we say, a toolkit and there's a number of tools I think that are already in statute that clearly have some bearing on here. Um, and just as an aside, I believe the school statute, um, has an intent element that there has to be some intent, um, in any event. Uh, Mr. Campbell mentioned something about, uh, knowing and, and how do you prove whether you know somebody did this by accident, an honest mistake, uh, chair Sears, you mentioned going to the airport and forgetting you had a, uh, an innocuous money clip that had a knife in it. And to many folks, um, they may forget that they, something that they carry all the time. But, um, I guess one of the things that I would like to raise is, um, especially in the magazine ban that is now in the Supreme Court, um, one of the Supreme said, what else could Vermont have done to address this? Um, to address the magazine question. And that really started me thinking, and I think it was along the lines of what Mr. Valerio was saying is what do we have on the books already that address this? Um, if it's threatening, we have that. And it's, it's, I'm, my immediate response is do we have data? And I don't think we do. We don't know a law that we just passed, uh, in 2017 that became effective in 2018 had to do with whether you were threatening one person or multiple people with some fairly stiff fines. I don't know if we know if that's ever been used at all. And even before that gets used, we're now looking at a, at a bill, S 30, that is, there is no intent. You simply have a citizen that may either knowingly or unknowingly be in the wrong place, and it's an honest mistake. So, uh, I guess these are considerations we need to raise. Um, and frankly, I know sitting here in my usual fashion, I've created a tome. I got so big I had to put a table of contents on it. So I'm taking a very high road and, and, and just so you know, we have not hit the panic button with our people. Um, 60 member clubs over 11,000 individual members. We haven't hit the panic button on this because I know the Senate is going to be exceptionally deliberative on this. I'm going to look at it from all sides. Um, I guess, uh, on the face of it, I think we have to realize that S 30 is only going to be really complied with by honest and law abiding citizens. Um, it's, it's an unfortunate truth. And we can't escape the fact that in order for this law to be effective, law enforcement has to be present. And if that's the case, and we were, we've been dancing around this. Um, if we want our employees to be safe, we need to take concrete measures to do that. And as we've seen, we have situations where some buildings have immediate protection and some don't. Um, so if this is to be effective, it really needs to have teeth behind it. In the case of courts, for example, um, and it's an interesting case. I go to court, um, and yes, they're screened. I'm not allowed to have firearms in there. And if I was choosing deadly weapon, a deadly weapon, thank you. Um, if I chose to take a firearm there and give up my right to self-defense, I am trading that off for the fact that I know that there aren't trained people there to protect me and to create the illusion of safety by saying, you can't do this is an illusion. Um, we are a rural state. Uh, we have a heavy reliance on safety. And I believe for, uh, 2019, Vermont had the lowest full-time equivalent for law enforcement officers in the country. Um, our state police covers 200 towns, 50% of our population, 90% of our landmass. Where is the protection for citizens? If you're going to do this enforcement, it means a significant investment in money, uh, of money for both equipment and personnel. I'm sorry. Senator Baruth has a question and Senator White, but I remind everybody we've got three minutes left. I, I, I did want to speak before we. But I do want to invite, uh, uh, Chris Bradley to come back and lead our next session, um, because I know this discussion. If I could, um, first of all, thank, thank you to Chris, uh, and Evan for reaching out, um, for a conversation to me. Appreciate it. Um, what I would say is I understand that there are other laws on the books that speak to things that people might do with a gun, such as threaten, uh, or shoot someone. I get that. This attempts to do something that there is no criminal prohibition against, which is bringing it to a certain location. So if, if you take the airport as an example, if, if I'm in the waiting area waiting to get on a plane, I, I don't want to see somebody with a gun and, um, have to worry about what might happen with that gun. And fortunately, there's a law that protects me from having to worry about that. So there's a gun free zone that you can't bring the gun in. It's not, did somebody threaten with the gun? Did they intend to bring a gun? Any of these other things that we've been talking about, it's simply, is there a gun in that space? And you know, we've, we've, um, agreed as a society, no guns in that space. Same with courthouses, same with schools. Now in schools, we don't, as a state, supply any money for guards, resource officers to enforce the prohibition on firearms there. So, um, you know, I think it's misleading to say that this bill would need to finance officers or, or teeth as you put it. Um, what we're looking for is to create exactly what we have at schools, but at two other common sense locations, hospitals and government buildings. Um, with that said, um, I'll, I'll save whatever else I have to save for next time. But the last thing I would say is that if, if we are going to achieve consensus on this bill, I could not go along with a rewrite that converted this to a civil penalty. And I want to just be very clear about that. If people are thinking of, of that as a, as a way to weaken it and reach compromise, I can't go that far. I appreciate that it's 1144. Chris, I hope you'll be able to come back at our next meeting and lead off, um, but with continuing testimony and, uh, continuing thoughts. Um, Peggy, we have some time Friday morning that's left to be determined or don't we? Oh, yes, we do from, uh, I believe it's 1045 to 1130. Okay. Well, I think I'm going to leave that, leave that as is and, and take this up next week and get to it. Others who would like to testify again, the offer is there. One of the considerations the committee should take is should we have a public hearing on this bill or not? We've generally had public hearings and there's been a particular firearm bill before us. Second thing I want to remind us is does not deal with protests of people carrying firearms. This is not that bill. We did have a letter or email from somebody that's posted on our, on our, uh, committee page that, um, is against doing that. And there may be another bill in the hopper that deals with that, but I'm not familiar with it. If there is, this bill does not deal with protests. So. Should I take that down? No, I just, I just wanted to, I just was looking at the document that are on our committee webpage and the gentleman wrote a concern about the protest and I just want to make clear that this bill is not about protests, unless of course the protest did occur inside of a government building. Can I ask a question? Are, are we in general putting letters that we receive on the webpage? Uh, I don't know. I mean, we've got a lot of them. Well, it's, it was there. I think that would be a bad idea if we, if we went down that road. Yeah. Well, it's there. It's on the webpage and we should talk about what our policy is about posting in a later, maybe that can be Friday morning's discussion is some of these further discussions about policies of the committee, particularly now that we're meeting remotely. And thank you, Chris. Thanks everybody for all your testimony. And we're adjourned until tomorrow morning at nine a.m. Don't forget our floor session at one