So thank you everybody for your attendance last night, I thought it was good. Yeah, thank you. But well, went well. And so this morning, as it says on the schedule, we're going to have a committee discussion. On 6th time, we finished our testimony yesterday. And so what I'd like to do, we don't have Eric Eric in the Senate. Okay, all right, we'll take those. Committee discussion, I'm going to go section by section. We're not taking any votes. We might do, you know, strongholds, which sort of see how the committee goes. But just want to... So we're at 7.1? Yes. And right, so Ramon Police Association, Beth went through her. She considered technical amendments yesterday. I'm going to put those to the side for now because they're confusing to try to put every board in, you know, especially considering that they are more technical. I think we can really look more at the substance of the bill. And again, section by section. So, everybody have... Okay, I need to be in front of them in terms of a coffee, a very clean coffee, or... Okay. And anybody needs to fill as introduced or not. But anyway, so okay, so the first section is section one. Background checks, and this is what we've been referring to as the default proceeds. When the bill started, it didn't have any date, any time mentioned. I flew out nine days because from testimony, I heard that after nine days the FBI would do anything. I need to hear a testimony that that was still a very long time. I mean, that other states had 30 days after that. So, here we are. Do you have any further discussion on it? Yes, please. Oh, okay. So, you know, I... This section is one that I think is kind of the most... This one is the section that I get hung up with the most in the bill. So, I'll start off by saying I'm kind of an agnostic on guns, which means that, you know, most people sitting around the room have disagreed with me on some point because I voted for some gun restrictions and against others over time. And I think the key for me has always been that when making some of these decisions, we make a lot of choices around privileges, restricting privileges and things like that, and I think that's an important piece. I think there are very few things in life that are actual rights, and so I think that the bar gets higher when you want to touch rights. And, you know, I know that we've heard quite a bit of information from people saying that you don't touch rights. And I don't agree with that. I think that there are very clearly limitations of rights that can be put on, you know, different things in the bill of rights. And I think the courts have shown that. But I do think the reason for that has to be extremely compelling. And the problem that I have with this section, I think, is that I keep coming up very short of compelling reasons for it. I will say that in future sections of the bill, I think that there's some merit to, there's a good amount of merit to some of the discussions that are going on in other portions of the bill, but I do feel that section one almost poisons the ability to have that discussion. So I'll say that, you know, I am not a Second Amendment person. I don't own a gun. I have in the past one of my favorite facts about myself is that I lost my gun and my divorce. Fun fact. But I don't ever intend to take advantage of the Second Amendment. But that being said, I believe very strongly in some of the other amendments that are there, and I do utilize them and wanted to send them often. I think back to the abortion debates that we had last year, when we were essentially debating what many felt was a right and others thought was, you know, a privilege that could be a breach. And overall, my hope is that we will be very careful when going after rights. One of the main things that I've heard against this bill is that, you know, rights shall not be infringed. And I think that's a, that's a faulty argument. I also think that one of the things that we've heard in favor of the bill is if it saves just one life, it's worth it. And I also think that's problematic in a lot of ways. Saving a life is very important. But I think it saves, it starts down a dangerous precedent of what is the threshold for removing rights. I again think back to the abortion debate and think that many people in the room pushing against that right would have said it saves one life. It's worth it. And I just worry that in the situation that we're in right now, it may work to say if it saves one life. But I worry about what future iterations of this body could think and what some of the dangers that we could be setting for protecting other rights that I think a lot of us care very deeply about, such as, you know, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment. These are all things that we hold very dear. I just think that when we're looking at something that when you actually break it down by the numbers, even to have a default proceed occur is twice as likely, you are twice as likely to be struck by lightning as just the default proceed to happen when you break down the numbers. And that just is not compelling enough to get there. I think that for me personally, and I know I won't be here for the final vote on this bill, but I can see a path to supporting some of the other stuff that's in this bill in the other sections. But with Section 1, I find that to be essentially a poison pill, and I would like it removed. I mean, I'm not going to repeat everything that Matt said and generally a better speaker than I am, but no, it's not true. Not true. But I have felt with this very similarly that especially during some of our earlier testimony, people would come in and say, well, I can't speak to the rest of the bill, but these are my many, many reasons for not liking this. And I felt 90 days was better than never. I feel 30 days is better than 90, but I still think it's just an extreme problem for some people that I would agree. I don't necessarily see this as a significant change, but it is clearly a significant problem for some people. I want to make sure I understand that. Can you explain your last... I don't think that the expansion in days is something that is extremely... I don't think it's going to be helpful enough that it's going to fix enough problems that it's going to revert the amount of scrutiny that has been given that one section. Yeah, I got it. Thank you. I'm just looking specifically at the background check, the transfer time, because I do think that we're not a particularly large state, and I feel like nine instances of someone who should not have gotten up our arm being handed one, I feel like that's a big enough number to deal with, to try and have a solution. And I know we know that seven of those guns were reacquired by the authorities, two were not. That's problematic for me. That's troubling. For me, I was okay with 90 days if there's a higher comfort level with 30 because of the way the background check actually plays out. But I have no concerns with changing it to 30. I will say I don't think it needs to go any lower than that, quite frankly, the people who are going to hate it at 30 will hate it at 10 days. So at least there's other things that we're at in section one towards the end that I think could have additional discussion. But as far as trying to close the Charleston loophole, I think it is very worthwhile overall for public safety in Vermont to change that from three days to 30. Are we just talking about the first section to start? Yeah. So no both stages of getting a feel for where folks are at. I think it is important to have a time frame, whatever that is. I think the unknown is troubling for people. But I think there still has to be some kind of confirmation that happens, even if it's the state contacting the feds. I was trying to just look at some of the data. I know we've heard the Vermont data. And some of the FBI data said that more than 20% of the perceived default sales involve sales to prohibited individuals. So that's concerning. I mean, that definitely is concerning. And I'd love to just figure out a way that even after no matter how many days it is, there's some kind of confirmation.  But they don't call you or whatever. It seems too important to not end on some closure. And in the cases of the FBI saying we're still, wow, we still are, it's not a duplication thing. But there may be a valid reason why it's taking a long time. And it would be great to figure out. So some of the constitutional issue that Matt brings up, there are lots of rights in the Constitution. Often rights are sometimes in conflict. There's sometimes competing rights. And looking at the Vermont Constitution, where the rights, in fact, that's in the first article, Article 1, is obtaining safety. And that's what this is seeking to do. It's helping to obtain safety. And in particular, it does relate to the domestic violence situation. From the GAO report, which is the best date I think we have on this, but it's, I think, from the period of time that goes to 2016, I believe. That was released in 2016. That 30% of the denials based on having a misdemeanor domestic violence offense are not resolved within three days. I'm sorry to say that again. So 30% of denials based on misdemeanor domestic violence offenses are not resolved within the three days. I would be willing to go a little bit lower, frankly, than 30, based on the GAO data. Based on that data, in 20 days, 96% of those domestic violence misdemeanors are resolved. The data also says that, well, the last 4% are resolved after 20 days, but doesn't give any kind of timeframe for that. So 30 could be 90. It wouldn't be beyond 90 because the FBI stops at 90 days. So I would be willing to do that because we could anchor it to, in fact, this data and it's related to really what the bill is about. So it's also that it's not taking away a right. It is putting a reasonable restriction on a fairly small population would be affected by this. So it's, again, you have this competing right that we have in our state constitution. So I'm still in favor of the default proceed. But again, I would be willing to go a little bit lower as far as related to the data that we have. So I mean, I support this section and I just want to speak as somebody who owns and has purchased firearms, but also somebody who's very interested in maintaining public safety. I mean, if I have to go to an FFL and they say to me that, you know, there's another person with the name Nader Hashim, which is pretty uncommon, but there's another person named Nader Hashim. He's a prohibited person and you have the same name, so we're going to have to wait an extra day or two to sort this out. I'm fine with that as long as it means that this other person who is a prohibited person doesn't get mixed up or isn't able to possess a firearm. So I'm fine. I think 30 days is fine. I think 30 days is fine. You know, like was mentioned earlier, the people who ate it at 30 days are also hated at 10 days. So I mean, if we want to bring it down to 10 days or whatever the alternative is. I just want to understand what you're saying. Morning, Coach. Hi, how are you? Good, thank you. How are you? Good. We're having a committee discussion. No, I don't. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, we'll just keep on going. Okay, thank you. So yeah, as you settle in. We're on the first section. Yeah. So I see your hand again. I had an opinion when we first had this bill. I know I should have brought it up for them. Patrick, it's like to hear from you whenever you want to participate. So no, no should have. But it is my feeling that this section of the bill, and maybe this would be a ridiculous thing to do. But I think both this section and the later section would have a better ability to be passable just in the general political sphere if they were separate. And I actually believe there are people who may, just because of this section, not support the rest of it or maybe support the rest of whatever the opposite of what I just said. So, and that was a thought I had early on of maybe it should just be presented as something different. I don't know if that is worth exploring. Proceed early on the floor. I wouldn't be surprised if someone divides the question when it gets to the floor. But it doesn't change the final vote. So you may have people with an opportunity to vote for some sections. Just some quick additional data that, you know, that there are several other states that have similar laws and Delaware dealers have to wait 25 days to transfer a firearm if there's not a resolved background check. California is 40 days, New York is 30 days, Utah and Florida do not allow the transfer to occur until there's a background check. That is complete. So it's open-ended. California is 40 days, New York is 30 days, Utah and Florida. And there's other states that require a permit or a license for a firearm and for issuance of those permits or licenses, there has to be a background check. It's a little more in-depth. And for those checks, there's anywhere from 10 days to 6 months for an individual to pass a background check. So it's really kind of all over the place as far as what states are doing. And then there are a lot of states that don't have any obviously involved. I also support this section. And I think really now that we, now that the version that we're looking at has time certain rather than as introduced, which just required completion of the background check, we're really just looking at an extension of the period before default procedure takes place. So it's not even eliminating the default procedure. And I think, I mean, I would have supported the 90 days because I think that was tied really directly to testimony we heard about after 90 days, it's clear like they're just, they stopped doing their work. But up until that point, folks could, results could still come in. But I don't support the 30 days if people feel like that's a necessary compromise to move things forward. I don't feel a need, I don't feel a need to go less than that. I understand the logic of 20 days, but I think 30 days is like actually clear for people to wrap their head around. It's just a month. And as others have noted, I don't think people who have concerns about 30 days are going to be like, oh, now that it's 20 days, I can support it. So I'd advocate for just meeting it where it is or even looking at the 90 day window again. And for me, I think it just, well, I feel like I need to repeat whatever what others have said, but it just, it does. We heard really clear testimony and evidence again and again that beyond the issue of common name mix ups that one of the contributing factors to this is just trying to understand how domestic violence and really from abuse orders can play out and that that can be a big factor for something taking more than 30 days. So to me, it's just consistent with the overall goals of this bill. And yeah, strongly, strongly support it. And one thing I don't think I mentioned earlier, I know there were concerns about federal law and supremacy clause and that the three days is the law. But Eric has testified in the past that we are, as a state, able to go further than the three days. And so get that out of this. What's that mean? We're a state that's able? What makes us able? We're not prohibited by, in some areas, the federal law that's it and that's, we can't, states are not allowed to. So it has to do with the federal law about something here. Right, right. So I don't think it's fighting it. We're not foreclosed from doing something because of the federal law. Right. Okay. And some states aren't? No, no. It depends on the federal law. Exactly. So in this, in this particular issue, it is okay for states to come up with their own. Okay. Yeah. Right. There were more restrictive understates, right? Thank you. Yeah. Because fair and impartial policing, that's what we found, you know, in those segments, you know, of the law. Was it to be more restrictive, but less restrictive, was problematic? And there's some federal laws that you can't go more restrictive. Right. So what? One example, I'm just curious. It's a fairly complicated area of whether federal law preempts the states from doing something. It's federal preemption.  Okay. Such as the federal government has Congress completely taken over that particular area of law. Isn't that like railroads? Yeah, railroads. Railroads are one of them. Probably energy. Right. Yeah. There's, yeah. I defer to Eric to explain which of those are. So I just wanted, one other point, and I just wanted to make clear for folks that under the regulations for the National Institutional Criminal Background Check system, after that three-day period, they continued to research the potentially activity records of somebody who's been delayed regarding that individual assault. And if there's definitive information that comes in that either shows the person is denied or that they should proceed, the regulations provide that the FDI gets back to the dealer. So either way, so the 20% of those cases that would be resolved within 10 days, as I mentioned earlier from the GAO, presumably under these regulations, they would be allowed to proceed before that 30-day period has ended. Did that make, is that clear? I can't say whether the FDI is following the regulations or not, but that's what the regulations provide. I'm going to surprise everybody and say that I want to stay at the three days, right? But with reasoning, with reasoning, not just because that's what it is and that's where it should stay. I'm going to spit this out. The Charleston loophole, which I don't like that term because it's not a loophole. I look at a loophole as being something illegal and there's nothing illegal about the default process. And that's appreciating people's concerns over, you know, the people purchasing firearms. So they, you know, they end up getting them and then having to, you know, the FBI, ATF, having to go through their process to get the guns back. We appreciate all that, the concerns, you know, that we'll brought it up with the two that we don't, you know, we're not exactly sure what happened with them. But with that said, the way that I see it, then I'm going to say Charleston loophole, this has all come about because of the Charleston loophole, which is one case. And that's not one case in Vermont. That's one case nationally and we're talking through the years, potentially billions of transactions. And even depending on who you talk to and the witnesses you listen to, some say that person got the gun illegally and some say they didn't get it illegally. So it kind of goes back to, I think what Matt had said is, for me, is changing a law because of one case. And to me, a case with some great area. That's it. So I just want to respond to that. Plus, my main motivation is, in fact, not the Charleston loophole, not what happened in Charleston, but the data that really from that GAO report was eye-opening that 30% of the misdemeanor domestic violence offenders are missed within that three-day period. So that's really my motivation for trying to give the FBI more time to sort those particular potential prohibitions out. Martin, is the data in the GAO report after Fick's Knicks are before it? It is before Fick's Knicks. There is data related to Fick's Knicks and I've asked some questions about that. And it's not entirely clear that this is going to resolve the issue with respect to misdemeanor domestic violence assaults. It was focused on some other areas where there were efficiencies and getting data into the Knicks system is my understanding. Right. And making it consistent so that things trigger when they should. I mean, I'll look a little closer, but it's not my understanding that it is addressing the 50 states different ways of describing simple assault that could be domestic violence related. I don't believe it fixes that component. I would stand in support of the extended time. What I'd like to propose would be adding just a detail. Listening to Jeff Wallin, who's our director of information for DSP and our repository and then listening to the testimony over the last few weeks. There are folks who have a concern about our data reporting. So what my suggestion might be is that being that we have one point of reference here in the state that we ask for annual updates, you know, from that entity, Jeff, or whoever's in that seat at that time for how the data is moving from the court. To the system, because he's in charge of all of that data, you know, and how it moves between the federal system and our judicial system. So in order to ensure that that information is accurate enough to date, because that's one of the questions that came up time and time again while fix the problem. I'm not going to just say that it's automatic, but this way we'd have a way of cross checking to make sure that things are changing. Because he was really good as far as answering the questions about next and getting us additional data from the FBI. You know, in like a two week period, he extended the information and the answers that we requested. I think that that might be a helpful way to approach it. Thank you. And when you say that, do you support the extended time? You know, the 30 days. So the 30 days, okay. Oh, I'm just teasing Martin. It wasn't me. I wasn't me. Your last day, I imagine that a lot of teasing to do. Oh, in the beginning. So the Charleston loophole is not a one time. I think that's a myth. It's a misnomer. There are a number of cases that it happened with. So the Aurora Illinois case, the church massacres in Sutherland Springs, Texas. That was the movie theater, right? I think so. I can get you the details. Virginia Tech with that situation. Westerly, Texas. This past summer was that situation. There was another one in Pease Park. Those were all prohibited people. And I'm happy to share what the circumstances were of how they... Yeah, that's what I was asking about Aurora. But in these cases, nothing came back after 30 days for the Pease Park one. Aurora will have to give you more details because that one is just referenced as people who slip through the cracks and there are deadly consequences. So Aurora was a workplace shooting. Why was the person missing? I will get you that answer, but it sounds like what it... Actually, you know what it'll say here. So basically these are all ones where the default time went into effect and the person wasn't cleared. So I'll get you the exact issue. I'll get you that exact issue. This situation is everything but Aurora. Do any of the cases you have in front of you, does it say why the person... were they restricted or just went past the three days? They were restricted and it was past the three days. But those articles don't say why they were restricted? One does. I'm certainly happy to put this around. The military had fallen short in one case of forwarding records. That's the Texas one. That's the Texas one. But that's not... That's not the S, but it would... Yeah, that's not the loophole. So I'll give you the details on those. Not the loophole if they're supposed to forward the records to make it clear that he is a prohibited person. Because no one... Because you could have a time limit of however long you want. You would not catch a person by that. It wasn't the records in the system. In the NIC system? Correct. That was the issue and that's one of the... I believe that was one of the triggers for NIC. In this other case, the criminal torch was filed in Austin, not in Houston. So they didn't check where that information didn't come through until a few days later. Oh, right. Yes. Did I say Colorado? Okay. It's Aurora, Illinois. Thank you. Section two. Well, I really says it says section three, but it says section two, which is the... in the heating. And so... I believe we still need the... Section four, the definitions. I believe that's set. I believe we still need those words. Beyond impeding. Now I'm totally convinced. Oh yeah, that's right. The mistake with the number. So where it says... Section three, line 20 is what we're talking about. Okay. And through line two on page five. We're taking that out? Is that... Well, this is our third discussion. And I have... I can say for myself, I have very great concerns after listening to... In time. Yeah, yeah. After especially after listening to the Attorney General's office testimony, you know, sure, attorneys will differ and we can never say absolutely, but for me he raised enough concern that I would like to see it out. I wasn't sure if we really needed it and maybe there's some language that reiterate that law enforcement has the authority to help defer to you. But anyway, so that's where I'm starting, but certainly others... Yeah, there's one question. I'm sorry, what? There was one question the Attorney General's office was going to get back to us on. I don't think they cleared it higher up yet. Does anyone remember? There was a question that... On this. On this section. I asked him, I propose some language. Yes, that was it. You know, how would you feel like this is impossible? Okay, so it's not a piece of... Gotcha. I didn't know if it was a bit of information that we needed for... Okay, thank you. There was one. Another question that I think he was going to get back to us on that I brought up was, I mean, I found it interesting that somebody could be charged with a felony for impeding in a civil case. And I asked if there was any other laws that did that, and he wasn't sure. I don't think he's going to get back to us or not, but... I think... I found that real interesting myself, so... I think it's a misdemeanor, though. Yeah, it's a misdemeanor. Right, but for impeding on a civil issue, you can be charged with a two-year felony, shall be imprisoned for two years or fined. I think we have, yeah. I don't think that is uncommon. Anyway, anybody want to advocate to keep this in? So, I guess I have a question. So, a violation of a protective order. What's the... What's that offense? Is that a misdemeanor offense? Violation of a protective order? Yeah, like a violation of a release of a abuse order. Yeah, it was a misdemeanor. The first time or something, right? Then the second time. So, there are two ways to get at that. The way I separate this out is the process of getting the firearms relinquished from the individual subject to the order. And then there's the separate situation of the law enforcement controlling the environment, or individuals, for instance, being at the location. Putting that one aside. The first one, I think we already have that handled by what we are asking or requiring the court to put into the order, which is on page 7. It's requiring the defendant to relinquish the firearms pursuant to the instructions of law enforcement officer. Which we do have the definition of the instruction of law enforcement officer back on page 5. Which is in part repeated in the order language that we're requiring on the bottom of page 7. Requiring the defendant to provide the location of the firearms, the keys, etc. So, if the individual does not follow the instructions of law enforcement officer, which is giving the law enforcement officer the discretion to try to receive the firearms right when they go on serve, or we'll be back the next day with the U-Haul, or we're going to wait until I get back, or whatever. It gives the discretion for the law enforcement officer to control the relinquishment situation, but also creates the requirement that if not followed, could lead to a violation of the lethal abuse order. So, I think without this impeding, we have that covered as far as giving law enforcement discretion and the authority to get the relinquishment done in a safe manner taking into consideration logistics. The other part is this, what we're dealing with here in the impeding, which is the other individuals who may be around and such, and I think that's what you're working on language with. Yeah, can I speak? Sure. So, this, as far as I know, originally came in to address officer safety at a scene like this, and as it is currently when cops are at a scene and they know that guns are involved, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's not like anybody's messing around, there's no leniency, and people are being controlled at a scene because you just don't mess around with that and you don't get complacent in that sort of scenario. And we, you know, heard the example of being able to control somebody when they're on the other side of the room versus when they're in your face, and the reality is, is that when that person is on the other side of the room, they're going to be controlled by that police officer. And there's really, yeah, there's really no other way around it. So, yeah, yeah, that's, I'm not too concerned about having this in the bill as it is because it's not really necessary because cops are going to control that scene. So you don't think we have to have the impeding, new impeding offense? No, I don't think we need to have a new impeding offense. I think it would help, you know, if the concern is having language in there that makes it clear that officers can control a scene, then we can include language that says, you know, when police are executing this order, they have the ability to control people's freedom of movement, which they already do. But if we're putting that in there just to put their minds at ease, I guess, then okay, but it's... Yeah, that was good to ask. What's the existing law on that? I mean... Impeding an officer, part A was existing, part B was what we added. But does that... Yeah, I mean, if you're asking what control about control, what's the... Yeah, I mean, if we already have an existing law, to me, it makes no sense to put it in again, but other than as a reminder. Yeah, I mean, I can't speak to the precise law at the top of my head, but I can speak to what actually happens, which is... Right, what they teach you at the Academy or whatever... What they teach you and what actually happens is that if you're in a house, there's several people and there's guns around the house, you're going to be in control of those people, you're going to be able to see their hands, and if they're not listening to you, they're going to go in handcuffs, or they're going to sit in the back of somebody's cruiser. That's what happens. Right. You're saying if you go into that house one person, are you going to wait for a lot of backup? Because one person I don't think is going to control that and you're going to end up dead. One person, well, one scenario, I mean, each scenario is different, but it's one trooper, one officer, versus a house with five people in it, and there's guns all over the house, you're waiting for backup. So you're now going to go in that house before you've got plenty of backup? No, even with the execution of these orders, you're supposed to go with two police officers. In the execution of RFAs as it is currently, you're supposed to take somebody else with you. Old domestics you're supposed to take at least one other trooper or another police officer, sometimes more, and yeah. So I wasn't going to weigh in a lot until after we're done, but this section here really, really gives me concerns. The lack of 24-7, 365 police coverage and all this stuff, the situation could get worse. I'm gravely concerned about police officers. I'm also concerned about innocent people that might be in that house and also what more it would possibly could happen to make the situation much worse. I saw a lot of questions on this part here. Yeah, a lot of concerns, not questions, a lot of concerns. Maybe it was better as a question for testimony, but at least as far as I'm with my experience with firefighting, when you show up on a scene, you control the scene because you're called to it, but this isn't going to be something that you're like dispatched to. You're not reporting to a scene necessarily, this would be more like an order to go do this. Is that still the same jurisdiction of controlling the scene in that sense? If you're going to a house and there are people and there are guns, you're going to control the movement of those people. That's what happens. I'm not sure we need extra clarifying, but if there is an existing law enforcement officer. I will ask another of this as well from your experience. Again, we've got page five where we're defining instructions of the law enforcement officer, including related to the time, place, manner, conditions, and relinquishment. At least I've interpreted that, that gives that law enforcement officer a lot of discretion to determine how that's going to happen and when that's going to happen as far as anything goes. So in other words, we're not saying you immediately have to do this in an unsafe manner. I trust that the law enforcement officer is going to exercise discretion to do it in a safe manner. And this definition makes clear that the defendant should be complying with the law enforcement officer's instructions related to that exercise of discretion. Is there a question? My understanding of that is correct from your perspective. I have to get back to you, I have to think more about what you're asking me. I want to make clear to law enforcement that when they're surveying the order and determining how to relinquish, it's completely in their discretion to figure out how best to do it with respect to safety and respect to logistics. That's kind of one point. But also that the defendant understands, you know, it says when you have to relinquish your firearms, they're not going to say stand at the door and say, yeah, come in and get my 50 firearms right now. The law enforcement officer thinks that, no, that's not safe. You know, we're going to have to have more backup, whatever. But it ties the defendant to the fact that he or she has to follow the law enforcement instructions on how to relinquish. You know, they get the order, it says immediately relinquish. They say, well, yeah, here you go. Law enforcement's not ready to do that. You know, they have to follow law enforcement instructions. Anyway. Yeah, so it's... But I think, yeah, and I think we can talk about that when we look at section four, I think. Well, it's within the definition section. I'm just wondering if that's given enough coverage. If we take out impeding? Yeah, if we take out the impeding. Where are you seeing the immediate relinquishment? Well, that's in the order on page seven. So, bottom of page six, that absolutely defined order, similar language, and require the immediate relinquishment. Yeah, but let's go back to that. Just trying to make it confusing. Yeah, yeah. You know, I think that we need to just stick to the impeding. Yeah, right. And coach. No, that's all I was going to say is that, you know, it appears that we're talking about redundancy of process and procedure. Yeah. Because we're talking with our sheriff on Monday and our chief on Monday. Like Natter shared with us, they determine process and procedure for their officers based on their training and experience at the scene. So, you know, what is our intent? You know, is it to be redundant? You know, or is it to just create more confusion in a way? And so that's the concern. Yeah. And I think not only, well, for me, this goes beyond redundancy.  I think that going back to the idea of introducing language that provides some clarity and I guess more confidence because, you know, in the back of every cop's mind is, all right, these actions that I'm taking, am I going to get sued for this? And then the other section is, am I going to make it home tonight? That's the other part. And so there are often times or confusing gray areas where, you know, they may be wondering, can I do this without getting a complaint filed? Or, you know, how do I go about this without inadvertently violating somebody's rights? And have language that makes it clear and makes it certain that, you know, at a scene like this, you do, in fact, have the authority to control people's freedom of movement, I think, would be helpful. Yeah. Okay, great. And you're working on that with Eric? Yes. And I also have a concern that, you know, there's this fear that some cops may have of, that causes them to be hesitant, because they may be at risk of being sued or having a complaint filed. And the last thing that you want to see is a cop who's hesitant because they don't know the rules and it's not written anywhere. And so they, so they hesitate and then they end up getting hurt. So, so I think having language that would clarify that would be good.  And that clarifying procedure is one thing, creating another law, you know, or another crime wasn't necessary. And I guess that was the difference. Great, great. I'm timing this one. So, from what I heard, I think somewhere this is written in law already, right? I mean, I would assume at this point, and I didn't know if just a reference back to what's already written, if we could, if what we have already is sufficient. Beth was referring, I can't remember what you said, but she was making some references as to how and why cops are able to control a scene. Right. And I'm speaking more of just of what I was doing on the road versus the exact case law or the statute so I can... Practice policy training versus what wouldn't I find I think we can focus on. Right. But we still could capture it. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I'm just thinking whatever is easiest way to get it done, whether it's referring back or, you know, adding something. So, I have a question for Nader. Does anything else rise to the level of guns when you said law enforcement takes it pretty seriously when they're going in somewhere? I'm assuming like explosives or something, but... Knives? I mean, weapons in general. I mean, if there's a weapon, then I can't think of a better analogy or metaphor, but when there's a weapon, the gloves come off and the scene is going to be controlled. So, like for some, for example, if somebody is standing in a kitchen, you're going to get that person out of the kitchen because that's actually the most dangerous place to have a witness or a suspect because it's filled with weapons. Wow. Yeah. Does that... It's helpful because I guess I was thinking that if it's that, which I get, if it's that intense for law enforcement to go in, it sort of speaks to sort of the need for doing something, whatever that is that we're trying to do in this bill, right? Like, we know it's people who are like really volatile and have weapons. So, right, because there are other calls that you go on that you're not... Law enforcement is not as concerned, right? I mean, the DV ones seem to rise just, um... Well, I mean, in theory, you're supposed to always be observant and aware of your surroundings, but in reality, you know, if you're going to... If you're responding to the school because two kids are pushing each other around, you're not going to be as on high alert as if you're responding to a stabbing. You know, that's the reality of it, but in theory, you're supposed to be constantly observant. I think, um, if I remember correctly, I heard at a certain time of day that there's only so many state troopers that are on duty at that time. And even though a lot of people think Vermont is not that big of a state, when you're trying to get from point A to point B, and I don't think troopers usually have the ride-along program together where their buddy system is working. On top of that, you put the extra load on the municipalities that aren't there. I don't see... I have a concern that the dangers probably could have already happened, and I just really, really strongly believe that we're putting officers' lives more and more in danger. We don't have the capacity with law enforcement to enact a lot more of this right now. This section is... I have a lot of concerns with it. Just one question, Margaret. So what you said you're working with Erica, some language. So it's just what you're working on is more clarification for what can already be done and not, but still get rid of the wreckage. And that clarification is sometimes what's needed for some cause, if they're hesitant or if they don't have recent training or if they're newer. Yeah, okay. So I think what I'm hearing is, let's take it out and have some clarification on language. Different language, yeah. I wouldn't support that. Okay, hold on. Okay. So the next section is section 2 on page 5, line 20. Is that what we're doing next? It's interesting. We haven't spoken much about the definitions. Martin referred to it a little bit, but I just want to make it clear that that is not coming out. That my understanding is that that is needed. Section 4 on page 5, line 20. This shows up for the other section 4. I know that the judge was suggesting that what's on page 5, the definition, and what's then on page 7, which kind of reiterates part of the definition, that it's redundant and is not necessary. I disagree with that because I think that we need the definition in here and I think we need to alert the defendant of his or her obligations under that definition of what the linked question is. So I would say we need both of those. Right, and that's why I asked the judge who was satisfying, kept on saying form over substance. He said what? Form over substance. Yeah, that's right. I remember from law school, it's not substantive, it was more. And I do think that he was concerned about the forms getting too long, but one of the things about this bill is that if this bill does pass, we have heard that the state has the technical framework and forms would be something that remind the way we get assistance on to look at the forms to make sure that they are usable, get the right information and so forth. And I think that's one of the goals of this bill is to make sure that all those involved have the information that they need and that they're not getting out. So I think that they should stay in. Structurally in this section, I agree with everything you said about the definition of relinquishment of a firearm staying in. I think in subsection eight, the definition about instructions of a law enforcement officer, unless I'm missing something in the section on the orders, I believe that really does just point back to the proposal around the proposal to create a misdemeanor for impeding in the language that's reflected there. So I guess I would just want to note that we should true that up with whatever not or is working on. I think there's other parts of the bill or the chapter, unless I'm missing something, where we point to instructions of a law enforcement officer. Page seven at line 1617. Okay, yep, you're right. There's another place for the emergency order that is also referenced. Okay, yep, okay. Sorry about that. Yeah, page nine, wait a second. Page ten, line three and four. Okay, got it, okay. Anybody else on page five? So I guess I would ask about the three different places that it does talk about relinquishment. I guess I don't understand the difference between the three different places. It's all basically the same numbers that says the same thing. Where do you speak? So you're on page five? Five, seven and ten, where it talks about relinquishment. That may be a question that's better to ask when they're in the necessity of it, rather than trying to. Well, I think the definition on page five is a little broader than what we're asking for in the order. And we're asking for this language to be put in the order specifically to inform the defendant of their obligations under the order, rather than just leaving it to the defendant having to understand what the definition is in this action. Would the defendant be understanding it or probably their counsel would? No, because there's no counsel at that point, that's right. Just thinking about Tom's question, in thinking about some of the testimony from just all of the different folks, at different points and depending on the nature of the order, that's where some of that clarity comes. If it's determined by the court that when the question is asked, are there weapons involved or it comes to the attention of the court, that there are weapons involved, that's when that condition to vacate, like on page nine, where the order includes a relinquishment or a requirement to vacate, it's clearly stated in the order, so it is a case by case and depending on the information of the court gets. At least that's no court law. Also again, because we're looking at the final before the emergency, the way the statute is going to be, that's what you're saying. And it does speak directly to the defendant, you know, understanding the order, that's there as well. Okay, let's take a break and then we'll continue with this. Eric, okay, so we are, is that the thing is, I guess you're going to start with the emergency first in the final, even though it's not like that, you know, let's put it, other people can agree? Okay, so, in terms of what was introduced and where we are now, a lot has changed. If you remember, we had Civil Lawrence, we had, when served, always served, you know, these sections. What we have here now is really an attempt to address the concerns of law enforcement and the district. So, on page 8 of existing law and page 9 starts to talk about what the order shall include. And again, you'll see at one point we have the court findings and then we heard from the judge that that didn't work. So a lot of the changes here really, like I said, responsive to the judiciary and to law enforcement and also, at the same time, making sure that the court gets the information that is needed to make the best order and ensure safety. Did you just repeat what paid wrong? Sure, I did. So this is the emergency order? Yeah, I thought we'd start with the emergency before the final, but if that doesn't make sense. Now, sometimes I wonder if the statute should be reversed anyway, you know, if the emergency order in time temporarily comes first. Right. Did we decide yesterday to strike on page 10, section 5 in balloon? There was some statements by Judge Breerson that it was unnecessary because you're talking about the emergency order and I just can't remember whether we did. What was that? I'm reading through this so I understand the sections that we're talking about. Page 10, line 18. Yeah, I don't think we decided. We didn't make a decision on that. And again, I know these people aren't necessarily the great cutting form over substance. He was concerned about the forms getting too long. And I share that concern and I think that the goal is to get information that we need to get new forms to see how they work. I think we are trying to inform my desk defendants the court of as much information as possible. I think one thing my notes say from his testimony is if we're going to, or I think I heard him say, we're proposed that if we're going to inform the defendants about the provisions relating to third party storage, that we should inform them of all their options regarding your language, which I think maybe we do now in the language of the final order. I think that was his point that you're not going to do it on an emergency basis. I recollect that same thing. Did he think maybe that might be better in the final order rather than the emergency? Again, policy decision for you guys, but that's my recollection of what he said. These are emergencies, so therefore it's going to be quick and fast by nature. And that we would articulate all the options for relinquishment, not just the provisions around third party storage. That would make sense because the person is not necessarily even there, but they're going to be giving options for how to properly handle this. So there was language I think that was about to be offered that addresses one issue, which would be adding this to inform the defendant of the provisions of 20 BSA 2307 being won, regarding where the defendant is authorized to relinquish firearms and that third party storage firearms is not permitted unless the court has made the findings required by 20 BSA 2307 B2. So if we do keep it in, have it clarified for a while. That covers both points, I think. Does that make it any more cumbersome for the forms or anything? On top of what's already in here that the judge was concerned about, I just wouldn't want to add any more. I don't think we'll know and I go back to the technical assistance grant, I think that was what the grants were and we'll help address those issues. So I actually think so, listening to this, I think it would be helpful to put the EPA's language in order to address both points. Do we have any, who creates the forms at this point? Right, the court. The court administrations. So I think I understand the concept of getting as much information out there. What I'm leery of is making sure that it's in a form that someone can actually look at and get the information that they want. You know what I mean? As we're adding more and more information, what I'm worried about is that you could actually be losing someone's focus on the information that they need to get. So just making sure that, and I know you can't really legislate this, but I think the intent is to have an easily usable form for people to get all the information they need to get that doesn't look like a terms and conditions to accept, to go to a website thing. I think you're right. However, I also hear that the information, the forms are not capturing the information. Yeah, I'm not arguing against, I understand the purpose of all this. I'm just saying that my hope is that it's understood, as I don't think you could put this in language. I think it would be ridiculous to try, but my hope is that just our conversations around the table would have anyone tasked with putting the forms together to understand the ideas, not just to get the information onto a form somewhere, but to actually make it usable, readable, and accessible to people. So at what point in the process are we, when somebody's giving this information on relinquishment? Are they at home getting served at that point, or are they in a court, or are they in front of, do they have a, you know, potentially a minimum of public defender at that point? The reason I'm going there is because if there is some kind of representation at that point, it seems that the representation would be telling them, I love this. They have to interact with the crime. Right. They don't have a public defender sign to them, and they are, at least in the emergency order piece of this, they are at some location somewhere being served with the order. So they could be at their front door with not, or they're just giving them the information? Absolutely. With the order? Right. You're right. You know, one of the things I think that the court administrator and Chief Judge was talking about was at the end of every session, they spend a very large amount of time analyzing every bill that we've done, and they try to clarify all of their forms. And then they share that when they did their, their testimony, just in general, as far as the update, you know, goes. And with the new system that's going online, and a lot of the pro se types of work that can be done, it's even more imperative that the forms are clear in their, in their detail and understandable. Because if, if an uninformed individual is going to be looking at this document, it needs to be clear. So, you know, I would agree with Matt, you know, as far as, I know we can't legislate it per se, but, you know, we can share our concern that we want this to be as clear as possible.  So if the forms are not as digestible as they could be, you know, we're kind of creating more of a fluffle than we need to. Do you remember at some point that we had one of these forms in here? Yes. Yeah, we did. I don't remember what it looked like. Our website and, let's see what I have, but yeah. We didn't have an order. We had the complaint form, didn't we? I guess it was not... It has a return of service. It's under Caroline Hansen. It's posted on the committee. It's on our website. All right, so... And the reason I'm going there is I just wanted to see how long it was and just how much more confusing whatever it would potentially be with this little bit of language. And again, this language came from the consensus group. Definitely. So I think it, for the most part, would work. I have a question from a technical perspective is, do you want to have it in the final order also? So it just occurred to me as I was thinking through it that it might not be a bad idea. Whether or not you also want to repeat it in the final order is still a question. But where it is now is in the emergency order. And as I was thinking it through, though, having in mind what we were just talking about and Judge Gerson's comments on that, though, it does occur to me that because the statute entitled 20 permits relinquishment to a third person, only those specific findings by the quarter of May and in the service of the emergency order, there's not been a court hearing yet that the person's been at. So there would have been no way for the court to make those findings. So it might not be a bad idea for it to actually be just to remain in the emergency order just because that way you're informing the person, oh, you can't relinquish it to a third person yet because it has to be a court hearing where the court makes these findings. You know what I mean? It's just a notice issue because otherwise the person might think, oh, doesn't the law say I can just hand them over to my uncle or something? But that's true, but the court has to make those findings first and that hasn't had the opportunity to happen yet. I see. It just occurred to me. Yeah. Yeah. So, and then again with VPA's language. Right. Yeah. But do you want it both ways, though? In the emergency and the final? Yeah. Probably. Yeah. Yeah. I think it used to make sense. Right. Are you looking for comment on the section in general or you want to make that I'm not sure how you're doing it. You can go ahead. Okay. Yeah. No, I think, yeah, sorry. Let's move forward with the language of those sections. Yes. And there was the additional language. For example, along, you're referring to which the first part of that about they're sort of referring to all the options under 23, 10, you know, that's in some email that I think VPA has sent. Yeah. I want to make sure I have that. But you have designed a hard copy. You have? I think it's something that's been emailed to you. Okay. I did email that. Right. It should be posted. Yeah. It's posted. All right. Thanks. All right. So, Matt. Yeah. So I've gone back and forth on this section quite a bit. And I think that's because of the testimony. And I have found the testimony to be somewhat or quite compelling, especially in regard to the importance of acting quickly. So I have a number of thoughts around this section that I think sort of works towards trying to get some help in this particular area and for this time for people looking to come forward. I think the number one concern that I have is making sure that there's some check somewhere. So I think there's two sections of this bill that for me, either one can happen, but both simultaneously can't happen. So I think it's either the emergency order piece requiring the link with the firearms. If the plaintiff's complaint or affidavit mentions them, or the family piece that's in a later section. It's a favor. Oh, you mean the verbal day? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Keeping that in. It's either, I think for me it's either one or the other because one operates as a check on the other in my head. In my head. The way that works in my head, which is always a terrifying place for anyone who's ever tried to get in there, is that in the instance where an emergency order is being granted, I think in that place and time, the firearms are concerned for that limited amount of time. There's a compelling reason. I talked about compelling reasons to a bridge or right. And I think I can get there in this particular case for this thing. But I do think that at the same time, one of the checks on that, and I do think it also is to make sure that we're going through the process that currently exists of its state's attorney bringing the emergency relief, whether the request forward. And I know they're not easily connected, but I do see one that it's too broad to have both in there. The other piece I'd say is that if the decision was to go the other way of having people being able to bring the complaint forward, I also see merit in that. But I do think that there's a problem then with not having to prove the case for removing firearms on the emergency basis prior to the final order being issued by the court. And I notice some that sounds a little bit hard to balance out, but that's how it works in my head. The couple of pieces that I do have concerns with this year that I almost wish we would change or remove is on page 10, line three and four, I think is absolutely appropriate if you require the person to release the firearms. But I am worried about what the ultimate ramifications of the other lines in green further down are of requiring the person to state that. Not as much of a concerning the emergency case, because the person is not a prohibited person at that point by federal law. But I think when we start to get into the final relief from abuse order, I'm concerned about saying in here that we're requiring, based on an order, a defendant to admit to something that's a crime. Can you just on that issue real quick? Under this bill, though, the person would be a prohibited person for a temporary RFA. That's one of the changes in this bill, one of the separate sections. Right, but not for federal law. Not federal law. Right, not by federal law, but you'd be creating state provision. I'm trying to get more towards the text that's in here. I'm trying to bend where I want, where I think it should go to be as accommodating as possible. But I do, at a gut core principle, have a problem with the involved sections. With anything after line four that's in green to require that information. Yeah, I'm fine with saying that the law enforcement officer may ask that, or should, and shall ask. But I think that there's an interest between that and requiring a person to admit to something that is then a crime. Well, okay. Because the affidavit always says that the individual possesses or owns or controls firearms. And it is not necessarily written, but it's by the plet, the affidavit would be by the plaintiff. Right, right, right. So I think the concern is, you know, fine to say to the inquirer that the defendant is a relinquished artist. Can we ask Eric if there's a, that's essentially a fifth amendment self-incrimination question. Is that on that with respect to a little of that? I wonder if it depends on the, what moment the order becomes effective. So the criminal prohibition is on possessing a firearm while they're subject to an order, right? Well, this would be what it served. It served already, so they would have to be subject to the emergency order at that point. Well, I thought this was at the moment of service. It's being served. That's part of the order. This would be in the order of that language requiring the defendant to do these things. Right. So the defendant has to say, here's where my firearms are and here's how many I have, that sort of thing. I know it's an interesting question because of the timing of it. Because before their order is served, they're not yet in violation, right? But they also wouldn't be asked that question prior to the order being served. Well, it's nice to ask this. It's requiring the defendant. Right. He'd ask the question there. Yeah. Yeah, I want to think about that a little bit more. I think. So flag that. Yeah, right. So can I go back to the issue of the IRPO versus the Deletion of Use Order? Mm-hmm. Right, so the IRPO in some respects is broader but it's also narrower. I mean, it's narrower in that it does not have to, the petitioner does not have to bring forth the evidence of abuse. Whereas for the relief of abuse order, you do have to prove that, let's see, I got my notes here. Oh, I have my notes here. And you have to, in fact, prove that there was abuse, which you just bear with me for one second. Yeah. So, yeah, that there's been abuse and that there's danger of further abuse, that the relief of abuse order is not issued. The abuse could be defined as attempting to cause or causing physical harm, place another person in fear of imminent serious physical harm, et cetera. So those things have to be proven there first. And it's the connection of the presence of firearms to that situation where there's a fear of this imminent serious physical harm and that there has been physical abuse. Yeah, I'm aware that there's a huge inconsistency in my identity and I understand that.  But I'm saying, I guess what I'm saying is that because there's this abuse situation, that is what needs to be proved for you to take the next step to say firearms should not be in that situation. Under the ERPO, which is broader in that you don't have to have that domestic abuse situation. It could be in the other situation. It could be a family member worried about their brother who lives in a different house has may harm somebody, not an intimate partner. In that situation, you have to prove the imminence of that serious harm, the extreme risk of that serious harm. So it's a little bit different standard that we're talking about for relief from abuse. And there may occur. And we are making the understanding based on lots of data that when you have those two situations the presence of firearms significantly increases the risk of lethality or injury. I would like to treat them separately and I think they are different and I think they will be used differently. I'd like to focus on this section and I'll leave it to you. Back to that look with the Fifth Amendment concern and such, but I need to make sure that I understand from Eric that with this language in here when this order is served if the individual does not provide that information, the location of firearms, the keys, the combinations, other information that would be a violation of the protective order. Correct? The order is requiring the defendant to provide that information and if they refuse to provide it it would not be a violation of the prohibition on the person being subject to firearms although it could be if they have them but if you're talking specifically about the denial of the refusal to provide the information that could be a violation of the order if the order is directing them to do that. That's a civil violation I believe. Violation of the order? That's right. Through that a little bit more though that's true but it's typical again I still want to think about this a bit more it's hard for me to imagine that if at the moment the order is being served let's say the person does have firearms and the person voluntarily so in order to do that they would have to and they'd say okay they'll provide the location the number blocks to the firearm to the safe that they have I don't think that would be a violation of the prohibition because they're in the process to comply with the order even though if you think about it for a moment technically they would be violating the order I suppose if they've been served and they still have but they haven't got to them yet to turn them over to the officer you can't imagine that that would be that strikes me as that that would have to be a due process for that person to then charge the person with a crime while they're attempting to comply with the order and get their firearms to turn them over to the officer who's serving them at the door you know what I mean? Right It seems fundamentally up there I imagine someone would be charged with that On the other hand if they have firearms and they decline to provide the information they then could be in violation of two different offenses they'd be possessing the firearm when they're not supposed to because the order's been served and they would have disobeyed their requirement of the order which is another crime So in that scenario the refusal when does the I don't mean to mix these issues but in what situation would the law enforcement essentially back off and then seek a warrant? Is that kind of it's been my conception that if somebody refuses at the time of well one of two things if they refuse at the time of the order being served to relinquish or law enforcement just decides whether to conserve the safety of the logistics that they're not going to seek to enforce that component of it I think at half point at the door they still think there's still problem caused because the person does have firearms and they either refuse to answer the question or turn them over or shut the door in the officer's face then the officers can that's what they get the warrant Yeah, the warrant Exactly Cool Right But you're also you're required to give that information Correct So So I can say let's say you're coming to me one of these has been issued against me and I say fine go get them but I'm not giving you the you go in and you get them I'm giving consent so you don't need to get your search warrant but you go in and I'm still in violation of it because I'm not providing you I'm not sitting down with an officer and going through serial numbers and you know makes and models or whatever it is at that point in time I'm just saying go do it I'm in violation of that order it's a criminal offense Right But I'm not hindering the order from Well it's different you know they're hindering it's a different Maybe you are also hindering it I may just not want to sit down and have a conversation with the officer at this point in time about this And most people probably wouldn't But the intent was to remove the firearms and that's being complied with Well yes if you're only asking for relinquishment I mean with this language here there's a violation of your rights It could just be my interpretation this may be what some folks are getting at but I see the section 2 on page 10 requiring the defendant to relinquish the firearms pursuant to the instructions of the law enforcement officer if the law enforcement officer says I need to know where the firearms are I would say that all of that would be included on the law enforcement officer's kind of extrapolation of what he's allowed to do Maybe That's a fair point that sort of 3 sort of goes into more specifics about that but conceivably the instructions could include those things I think by putting and laying it out there and the idea is that they will always include those You're right that it could in some situations So I'm kind of alluding to I'm sure some people aren't going to be willing to aren't going to want to have a conversation I guess at that point So what if I said you'll location the firearms I said they're in the house there's the location keys are on the key rack and the combinations are on a piece of paper somewhere I've given you all the information you are asking for but you still haven't given any more information I think the part B to that any other information that will assist the officer would be the cover to that because you would say okay it's in the house where is it in the house the follow-up being any other information I guess I'm struggling a little bit to understand why compelling someone to actually functionally comply with the ring liquidation is problematic I'm hearing some people say I think I'm hearing some people say the degree of specificity here is problematic and I'm not I guess I'm just fundamentally not quite understanding why I think it depends on what the what the goal of the order is and I would argue that in this situation the goal of the order would be to remove firearms from the person that would be the intent of what's here I think what's somewhat problematic about it and I understand why you would have the further things but the important thing to comply with to stay in with the intent of this section is three and four after that you're creating a situation where a person faced with this while complying with the order and allowing law enforcement to remove firearms from the premises could still be in violation of this emergency relief from abuse order guns are now out of the situation but they are in violation of it and that's a crime because they at that moment did not want to sit down and have a conversation about all this stuff so a reaction that could happen that at face value would be inappropriate and you know his police officer shows up gives me this order and I say they're in the house I need to go get them I need to go take a walk surprised about this happening because I wasn't there I didn't know the order was happening but I don't want to sit down and have this conversation with this officer at this point that may escalate the situation even more so I have now walked away but told the officer they could go in consented to say you can go in and take the guns in there in the house but having an unrest with it I think that's problematic and I think you're trying to get at the idea of just stripping it down to the court principle the idea of saying what is the intent of this it's not to catch someone in the technicality if they have a conversation with an law enforcement officer the intent of this section is to get the guns get the firearms only from that person and lines three and four are the only two that actually acquire that so I mean it's important to incentivize incentivize cooperation essentially so what can be the incentives for doing that and the one here is that if you don't you're in violation of the abuse of the textular I'm not terribly troubled by that I mean it's if the person cooperates they're fine if they don't they have to remove the firearms by bringing in a safe cracker or whatever and in such so be it that's fine but the individual can potentially be charged potentially it doesn't mean it's going to be charged but could be charged with not following these instructions and therefore not complying with the order I was going to throw out just an idea which I don't know if I should I mean if we're looking for an incentive whether this helps you or helps this situation if language like this is included and specifically it's made a civil infraction instead of a misdemeanor for not complying with that component of such an order you know the other stuff definitely criminal offenses you violated the vacate where you haven't you haven't provided the firearms you haven't stayed away etc you know those definitely but if this one seems like a lower thing and we still want the incentive do we do we and can we and I guess it can we question for Eric have that just as a civil infraction so at least it's there for that incentive just another little technical thing but do we need to have even have the location of firearms on line 7 if it's in section 1 of page 10 which says all available information regarding the type location of firearms I think that that or is that being reported to a different person correct and who is that being reported to that has to be the order has to include all available in other words what the plaintiff the court in the affidavit said I think there's two firearms in the living cabinet that's what that first one refers to what's gotta be the order the second one on line 3 requires the defendant to provide law enforcement officer so that's a separate requirement that this defendant has to provide the enforcement officer with the location who knows maybe there's firearms other than the ones that were in the plaintiff's affidavit anyway there's two others somewhere else or even if there weren't still this is an information production requirement on the defendant whereas the first one and number one they refer to a location that's on gotta be in the order that the court issued that the court that the police officer is serving when they get to the house presumably that information came from in all most of the circumstances probably gonna be the plaintiff's affidavit and so once those are finalized at the court level is the process still the same that they go to the holding stations? the orders? yeah the orders go to the holding station so there is some of that communication you know component as far as making sure that that information is disseminated expeditiously and I think that was what they were talking about when they were the data storage piece because with the new system that's going in at the court level from judiciary in some of the language was clarified in the form that goes to the department of public safety and the holding stations that law enforcement actually has to use as their information system it really becomes that information gets there clearly and they were talking about some problems with that and then when the commissioner came in with his redesign there's a lot of movement parts coming in so we really need to make sure that the pieces connect right? so Eric are you going to think about the in terms of lines by do you think about any communication or institutional issues there do you think about that? no I think I indicated earlier what my thoughts were on it I don't know if anything really had the word expedited with what Matt said earlier there and stuff like that all that stuff there isn't getting murkier and possibly causing more of an issue who knows is it that that word could be interpreted in many different ways and about how long it's going to take to do something or the person involved can't maybe he's not functioning where he knows where everything is remembers combinations blah blah blah and all that stuff and then all of a sudden he's in more trouble because the law enforcement official is going to say well you didn't give me that information quick enough that is certainly a term that's open to some interpretation expedited and if you sort of play that sequence out what you just thought about or that you just mentioned if that happened and the enforcement officer took the position that the person wasn't complying past them then the consequence would be that the officer would have to fill out an affidavit and file a criminal charge that the person had violated the terms of the relief from abuse order even though they were trying to turn the firearms over but they weren't doing it fast enough and then would a case like that go forward would a court accept that has really grounds for that kind of a charge I don't know but that's the case I think that the officer would have to make is that even though the person was trying to comply they weren't doing it fast enough and therefore there's this criminal violation that seems like a tough case to make and it could be possible before we move on? so we're talking about confiscation right now and which I think that pretty much covers what happened with confiscation but so guns are confiscated really? law enforcement has them there's a list made they're stored whatever so as we go through the process somebody gets their firearms back what happens to the list the order? no, there's a list of somebody has ten firearms there's a list of make models, serial numbers and all that that the authorities have and they get their firearms back I don't know that's a good question for the court what do they do to return to I know it's a document but I mean what the court then how long does the court keep those returns of service or the orders or are they public documents that stay permanently? that's a good question I'm not sure of the answer deleted upon return just my USA 2301 that's the section stored what's that I said I'll be in with the picture of your face they should reckon with this okay okay page 11 page 11 any comments? if you want to strike the word owns online technical consistency being struck in other places with respect someone else have to require them on behalf of the plan what does he mean then? that's just provision about the form that says it has to include provisions that allow the enforcement officer to make actually what you were just looking at okay so it's allowed actually oh sorry so it's forward on page the language about what has to be in the return of service and that is on bottom of page 13 through middle of page 14 has to be accompanied by the return of service and on that return of service the officer has to indicate how many firearms are relinquished time of service and whether the officers tend to conduct contact or plane of depth or service so those are the only two things remaining what has to be in the return and the language you were just looking at provide advice for the officer so I wrote this question down yesterday and it's from one of the proposals I related to that section on page 14 because it's being referenced I'm kind of curious about why why put 8 through 10 in there if there's no requirement for that to happen where are you looking at like who gets page 14 lines 8 through 10 what is the information that we're trying to get to people if it's for the plaintiff they would know when the law enforcement officer contacted them it's not for them how would they know because the law enforcement officer would have contacted them so what's gained by that we could include the number of the license plate of the vehicle that was used to select it but it doesn't mean anything I just don't, I see it as no value add I think it's essentially a check off box that law enforcement has attempted to contact the plaintiff so if it's not there it's really it's essentially it's not necessarily a requirement that law enforcement do this but certainly by having this in here it is definitely a check off box for law enforcement as far as what they need to do in return of service a reminder perhaps that they need to contact the plaintiff okay I see you're intent I see it more of a prompt and a check off it's valuable to understand the other for the victim to understand whether they tried to contact him or not but I think it's more valuable that we're ensuring that that contact is doing or that that contact that he made developed having a straight requirement that it is made maybe something on a form to check off I would hope it gets to develop consistency can I just speak to the value of informing the victim I mean informing the victim that an attempt has been made it means a lot to that victim generally these people these victims are right after the incident are living in extreme fear and to know that the cops are actually doing something or at least trying to do something it makes a world of difference and how how things go about in those following days I totally understand and respect that I'm saying that a yes or no check box doesn't provide that comfort a attempt at this time or something would be a lot more comforting than seeing a thing and saying check okay what does that mean I don't know it just strikes I'm just not seeing it as a check box value I can see it as a value to say when the law enforcement officer attempted to contact so at least there's some information of what did you try to do to you know how do I how do I know you're out there doing something for me I think we also I wanted to strike the balance between telling the law enforcement how to do their job you know we didn't even heard about concerns about managing and at the same time balancing that we're getting the information and getting information back to the plaintiffs and you know you go look at the solicitor so I understand the intent I don't agree you don't think so yeah there's more of an intent yeah I just wanted to okay so you and I had to page no I was only reviewing the because because of that reference I wasn't jumping no no I don't that's what I'm saying that needs to go back to the yeah true back up to the final which is the bottom of page 5 6 I think yeah thank you actually I'm sorry I'm going to go back to page 10 something that came up with Patrick's question the top lines one and two include all available information regarding the type of location of firearms subject to the order that may be a little ambiguous then I would pose let me just throw this out there that we say include all information available to the court regarding the type of location of firearms subject or just to make it clear what we're talking about there's this information available let's go does that help does that help I didn't know the problem with the Google oh I thought I thought you were as far as well once I understood the difference from where it was going right but that's the key I'd rather have that clear in the way does it sound like the defendant has to go to the court to get that information or are you just trying to say the information for the court what do you think needs to be clarified or is that clear I don't think I've heard any concern from the court of anybody that there was anything but I do agree that you're phrasing the way you phrased the first time makes sense to me it's going to be the order is issued by the court so it makes sense for to say if you were going to say include all information available to the court they're the one making the issue in the order itself so that makes some sense right so is that the type of location of firearms after they've been taken from the from the house now that's before that's when the court when the court is in the process of issuing the order I think this stuff is only going to be in there if it includes the relinquishment right yes so if it was bottom of page 9 if the court's issuing a relief from abuse order that may or may not include in order for relinquishment but if it does it may not include all information available to the court regarding the type of location so by the time the court by the time that information goes back to the court they probably aren't going to be at the location anymore I don't know in practice I think people in this room work in this area more than I do but my understanding of it is sometimes when they go to serve them that's where they serve them probably not always but serve them sometimes but it is true that they might know what's coming and might want to get out of there okay this information is just somebody is saying that they're here there when they go to serve it who knows whether they'll be there right back to the final order I think that's the same language bottom page which bottom of the page says where it starts I assume I assume that there's the same issue that that the bottom of the page 7 that lines 18 to 21 period over the past it's all kind of the same mm-hmm and I would suggest the same language change that I just recommended that lines 14 to 50 on page 7 the available information available to the court just to make that clear that's different though that's oh you mean line 14 14 yeah actually though that is not what you did it in the final order for was the I thought it was for the affidavit I mean for the emergency I guess it isn't well that's in reality where the information is for the court as well but certainly for other than that that makes sense were you pointing that out or moving us there were you just pointing us out or moving us to that section to which we were jumping back to the final section bottom of page 6 7 I just flagged the fact that presumably the same concern that you have lines 18 to 21 page 7 at page 8 lines 1 and 2 so on line 14 on page 7 says includes all available information regarding the type number and location of firearms subject to the order but on that same part under the the other one on page 10 doesn't include number yeah it should be consistent eric on page 10 they have number on line yes nice catholic yep catch or move it on pressure and also just one more thing on page 8 line 11 strike holds yep I had that yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah actually I I believe in this section I think more than any other bill I think this is a very compelling case has been made in this section that this clarifies a lot of stuff that's out there those to make those to walk that line between I think showing a need of safety but yet understands that we're approaching right and that this actually really gets at trying to make people safer in really difficult times so I actually really like this section of the bill I will say again I mean I don't get to vote on it either way so it doesn't really matter but I just continue to be troubled that it's joined with section 1 which I consider to be a poison bill that's out answered before weren't page 11 right line 17 a person shall not possess what is our definition of possess Eric I think that's having your physical control or sometimes it could be constructive possession which means that it's within your ambit of your I would say wingspan could also be next page follow up on that just to be clear on the question about possession if you constructive possession can also doesn't have to be on your person or within your immediate arms or age if you own firearm or possess it say in the home that you live in it can still be possession even if it's necessarily within your arms or age right so next section on services where we had the one server always served in there we got rid of that and this is on page 13 Judge Pearson's language talking about should remain effect until person surface of the final order this is where we've gone back fourth page class mail and so this is this is the resolution that is a good one that's clean fourth cheese fourth cheese talking yeah I talked about about this before okay Grand I'm 40 yeah I've already talked about this before I'm sorry type on the page team work line nine field should be filed yes yes right and then on page 15 this is I'm not making it mandatory the court may and then again this is where we went back to rule 41 capturing current current on campus that is I'm concerned about the word chapter versus section line 12 I came up with a solution on that I think one proposal was sub chapter right go broader than so Eric from the draft it may help us this chapter versus sections crossed out there's chapter versus subsection yep so chapter would include all the sections of law in the chapter but some chapters including this one I've divided up further into sub chapter so if you say that the immunity applies only to ax made and reliance and provisions of this chapter sub chapter section you know you're getting sort of more narrow as you go down the progressions you just want to have it applied to the relief from abuse or the provisions I don't have it right in front of me but I think that's in a sub chapter to start section 1101 sub chapter one so it's all the general provisions or this sub chapter gets at the same thing so we have the fire arms have the phrase and removing was proposed by the PAS clarifying on 19 of page 16 yes so after the word accessing and before the word fire arms add the words and removing so we call accessing and removing the fire arms to probably one or one or the other okay okay but the trigger both right and maybe I'm just reading it wrong which is entirely possible but so this is law enforcement agencies or shall be removed from civil liability and then part two is returning a seized or relinquished weapon to its owner if the owner is not prohibited from owning or possessing fire arms can you explain that to me I don't know I'm misunderstanding I will also glad that you have me reread that because there's another type of on my 16 or owning rights but what that means is that if the enforcement officer returns the weapon to someone who's not a prohibited person so they took it away from someone who wasn't prohibited in their returning to someone who is not prohibited correct then they would be immune it couldn't be for any sort of damage or something that or even for the fact of the returning to the person someone couldn't later on say say this person did something right say a victim couldn't later sue the officer and say hey you should never return that weapon to that person and you're liable for that you're negligent for doing that and couldn't bring that due because this is providing them immunity as long as the person they return it to is not a prohibited person as long as that person were prohibited by state law or federal law because that's environment you've been involuntary committed for mental illness something like that that makes you a prohibited person if they return it to a prohibited person then they're not immune then they can still be sued right because you shouldn't be given one but this is more of these firearms seized from someone who should I think they've been seized and pursuant to the subchacres they've seized pursuant to one of these and then after those have expired they're no longer that's right how much they're prohibited for some other reasons they've got some other valid conviction in their background or something like that which in case they shouldn't have the person to take sexually there's a possibility so let's stop here thank you everybody and we will take back up anybody else going over to the floor starting at the same time sometimes yeah yeah