n or control, this is pretty much saying that this would be legal if it's an immediate possession. Right, right. It's kind of the opposite of what we normally think, but. Yeah, well, I'm just, yeah. If, heat default scenario, drug default, a couple of scenarios. So, an individual has a handgun, a loaded handgun, and has it in their bedside table or on top of it or in the drawer and leaves the house. Obviously not within their possession or control. But if the person is there in bed, or in the bedroom with that gun, I would presume that that would be in that person's control. Question is though, first of all, if that's correct. But what if the person's asleep? I mean, is that still within that person's control? If it's not locked. And these are kind of the questions that would be interesting to understand if there's, if courts or state's attorneys have dealt with those. The law, the case from Massachusetts that went to the Supreme Court, the gun was in the bedside table. The wife, the man was downstairs, he wasn't in the bedroom. The wife ran upstairs, got the gun through it out of the window. I believe. And then when he went to go retrieve it, she locked the door. And then he was charged with that, with not having it. So I, yeah. Okay. I don't know if that's- Maybe an area of factual- Yeah, well, it has to be determined. Yeah, by the courts. I think that's, yeah. Can I jump on that a little bit again? No, obviously possession or control can be different. But I'm more comfortable with that in my practice, you know, if like with Dewey law, you don't finish control of an automobile. And I've seen cases before where, you know, the person did pull over side of a road was asleep, but the keys were still in the ignition, so that was still considered control. And so, again, unfortunately, I think it's one of those until, until that really gets dealt out. I think it's going to be, at the rest of the day, it's going to go either way. Yeah. I would say that. Yeah. These are going to be fact specific. Sure. Okay. Are there any other provisions that you guys would like to talk about? On the, the storage? Well, that's really in question for, I think the commissioner of public safety. Yeah. I just want to make sure. Yeah, we weren't involved in that. I guess I wouldn't, I don't know if you've commented on the, the large capacity ammunition or the assault record ban, which you mentioned. Yeah, I think that, that is on very solid legal grounds. Oh yeah, you did, I'm sorry. You mentioned the second state of the type. Yes, okay. And that's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association to come up. That's, you know, that, that's pretty much on point for this. Yeah. Thanks. And I would like to continue to research to all of these issues and maybe submit some supplemental material. I just want to formulate my question. We heard testimony regarding gun shows and definition of a dealer. And I think there was concern that that somebody might not be a dealer and that still be selling at a gun show, which we heard was not okay, but then we heard somebody saying that, that happens quite a bit, which is why we need, on the S-55, do you have any? Well, when I was selling to the ATF agent, he said that a lot of people that would be normally prohibited will wait out in the parking lots of gun shows. And just say, hey, you know, I'll buy that gun for me for much more than they'll, than you can sell it for in there. And it's not illegal to do that currently. So, so I mean, if that answers the question, I think it does happen. I'm not sure what the frequency is. When you say that wouldn't be illegal, do you mean that it was a private sale? Private sale. So the person is not a dealer. So that part of the problem, part of the question that we had earlier was someone who is an FFL was testifying that his belief was that essentially anyone who was selling firearms for profit would be required to have to be an FFL. And I have to say, I think, having read the definition of a firearm yard, I don't quite agree with him. I think you could, it's not, it's not something you do sort of on a full-time basis, or as long as you're living, if you do it regularly, I don't think according to the definition, you would need to be an FFL. But if you were, or if you follow within the definition of the dealer, you still couldn't sell it outside in the parking lot. You'd still have to be, say within the law, you would still have to provide a background check, right, Ms. Olba? Yeah, you would go to an FFL. And the FFL would be, it's kind of like a, right, you would be the intermediary, obviously. If we pass. If we pass, right, yeah. And are you concerned that we may have FFLs that are saying, again, we're not gonna cooperate with it, or we're just, we don't have to do it, now we're not gonna do this, and that. Well, you know, I think that if you, I think that there's sufficient of them in Vermont to do this, and if they're charging, 20 bucks, 40 bucks for each one, and they can easily make decent, you know, $400 in a day on a gun show. And so there is an incentive to do, to run these checks. Okay, Ma'am, follow up. The testimony we got, though, from the dealer that was answering it was really based on the liability, so the charge that they're, the reason they charge this action, not because it costs them, but it's because of their liability, and so at least his concern was, he said, obviously, like the thing's true, I'm not going to comment, but I can see the final bill to see if I could take it or not, what would be the liability piece. And his current self, since he, that they are his guns, you know, and then he has a procedure to actually check them, you know, to make sure they're safe and all that, you know, he can absorb that liability, but his reservation with, with actually me and the media of the transfer, you know, those aren't his guns, so he won't have the same kind of ability that to check the guns, make sure they're okay, and because of that, it might be prohibited for him to do it because of the liability aspect, because now he's liable for, for that transfer. Bless you. I don't know enough about the liability I'm attaching. I mean, what this ATF agent told me was that, the reason why they charge a fee, even if, because the FFLs would do private sale, background checks currently, the reason why they charge the fee is because they're required under federal law to maintain that record for 20 years. And so that's part of that kind of administrative cost that is why they charge it. But so I don't know, I don't, I can't clearly see why liability would attach to the FFL if he's following the rules and doing everything that he's supposed to be doing, but he was talking about his insurance, the fine bill. I thought it was a liability insurance because, yeah, that record is what he's trying to prove the liability is true. Well, yeah. Mark. Do you have an opinion of what would be an appropriate waiting or a cool off period? I mean, it says 10 days in the bill, but any opinion on whether that's the appropriate timeframe? I mean, I don't, it's certainly a policy decision. I think that as long as it's in sufficient time to make sure that when there's the denial or there's a delay, as long as there's enough time to make sure that delay, the questions that are answered during that delay are answered, I think that's the appropriate amount of time, I can't say for sure. You're not sure how long that time is? It's usually just a failure of communication between the court and the next, or the person who's running the check. In terms of any case law that has said, three days, okay, but 10 days has been upheld. Well, 10 days has been upheld, very recently. That's right, that's the Ninth Circuit. That's the Ninth Circuit. Is there any finality, like, are there ever, did you hear, like, if there's ever a situation where then it stays a maybe and they never hear back? Again, I'm trying to think of more, like, now we're over on, for example, like, I think like, again, let's say that you're, it's a domestic from Essex County, and as you might know, like, that court meeting once or twice a month, you know, and so it could be this very long delay before someone gets to it. And so I'm just wondering, is there any way to even assure that you're gonna get the finality of so, like? No, I mean, what happens now is that after the three days runs, the sales is done, if it's a delay. But I'm saying, even if, I understand that, like, will eventually somebody get back to the FML? I believe so. He said that when they get back to him, and they find out that he actually was a prohibited person, then they have to go back and go and find the guy and retreat the guy, or find the person. But, you know what I'm saying is, they always get back eventually. I mean, that maybe is, I guess that's fine. Really, are there times where no one ever, or maybe stays a maybe is my question. Because it's not obvious that we have to figure that out. I'm not sure about that, yeah. Yeah, thank you. Hi, my name is Eleanor Riley. First of all, I just want to thank everybody for giving us and other students the time to speak today. We need a lot of students around Vermont to have our voices heard, and see them making impact here at our State Capitol. So I'm sure you all have heard about the walkouts that are happening all around the country today. People all over America, all over the world, students are walking out of school. And on our 17 lives, you need to see lost in Parkland, Florida, this day one month ago. I just think that shows that this really isn't a localized issue, and it's not a sudden or new issue. Gun safety and gun-related deaths have been insanely high within our country for decades, and people have been advocating for stronger gun legislation for just as long. American gun culture, however, has been around for a lot longer, and it's a right that we as Americans should, and maybe once could, have been proud of. But today is a right that is getting our children killed. I'm not an advocate for taking away our Second Amendment rights as Americans, and I'm no stranger to guns and American gun culture. I mean, I was born and raised in rural Vermont. My family have been gun collectors and members of the NRA for generations. My grandfather alone owned upward of 500 guns, and they're mostly, he sold and kept some of them, but they're mostly just in the house. They're in drawers, under beds, in cupboards, under couches. He inherited most of his guns from his father, who also used to make his own ammunition on his farm up in upstate New York. When my grandfather passed away, my father inherited most of his guns, many of which he sold, 40 of which he kept. My brother who's now 14 inherited his first 22 when he was about 10 years old from one of the many in my family's collection. So when I was really young, I just took guns for granted. Shooting was pretty much a fort. It was a family tradition. Then in 2015, a woman who worked for DCF was shot and killed while leaving work. Her name was Lara Sobol, and I'm sure many of you remember the incident. Unless I was mistaken, Phil Scott was actually acting governor at the time, even though Peter Schumlin was the governor. The woman who killed Lara was prohibited from owning a gun according to federal regulations.  In this case, prior gun regulation was not effective. This woman was deemed unfit under federal law to own a firearm and has a danger to herself and others. If she could have bought a gun and ammunition off of anyone she knew, any friend, acquaintance, under the table with no consequences and no regulations, completely legally. It seems ridiculous that we can allow this. Why bother having regulated gun sales if private sales are completely unregulated? It is at the very least illogical and at its worst deadly. Peter Schumlin at the time called the news horrific and pledged to review security procedures at state buildings. Security measures wouldn't have saved Lara. It could have happened anywhere. It could have happened at her house, picking her children up from school or on her way to the store. I know this because my mom also used to work for DCF. I live in Morin and in the summer when I was little, my mom would leave for work and take me and my brother with her. Lara was her best friend at work. My mom would drive us to meet with Lara and her daughters at the bus stop to go to summer camp. It was called Lotus Lake Camp. I don't know if any of you heard of it. At the end of the day, after working all day for the state of Vermont, they would pick us up and drive us home. While I was playing tag at summer camp, my mom and Lara were working on cases like these where sometimes they had to take away children from their mothers and tear families apart.  She would be exhausted every night and sometimes she would be involved in cases so difficult that she could barely talk when she got home. My mom didn't choose her cases. The DCF workers are assigned them randomly. Lara didn't choose that case. It was assigned to her by the state of Vermont and it was the state of Vermont to protect her while she was working it. This case could just have easily been assigned to my mom. It was a random assignment out of hundreds and papers had been sorted or filed differently. It could have been my mom lying on the pavement that day, leaving out outside of the DCF offices. The last time I saw Lara was at Bolton when my mom and I went skiing with her and her daughters. The last time I heard about her, it was the news of her death. My mom was an organ at the time. She left immediately and made it back to Vermont driving in under 48 hours, but I'm pretty sure she missed the funeral. During today, we had a snow day so we didn't actually get to participate in the walkout at Harwood. But I was thinking about it, especially when 10 o'clock came around and I knew that all over the country, students would be walking out of their schools and they'd be counting the 17 minutes. And I know that that number of 17, especially for those students as Stoneman Douglas will forever be different. For them, the number of 17 will carry a certain weight and an underlying connotation that will never really disappear. I know it sounds a little strange, but I say that because for me, that number is five. The five students from my school who were killed last year didn't die in a mass shooting, but losing that many young lives so suddenly is something nobody should have to experience. There isn't much we can do about preventing accidents. They do happen, but we can prevent something like what happened in Parkland and we can prevent guns from getting into the hands of people like the women who killed Lara. And this bill is the first step to that. Thank you. Can you ask questions? Yeah, oh, yeah, it's all right. You just said that this was the first step for that. Where do you see the end game? In terms of gun control, I don't think that people owning guns is a bad thing at all. Like I said, my family has owned guns for generations and hunting is definitely a part of life here in Vermont. And in terms of protection, I can see where owning guns can be used in that way. But I think that the way we treat guns in our world today, or I mean in America today, is something, can we get really defensive about it? And I think that culturally it's more about the culture and the practice of owning guns and the pride than the actual reality of the situation. And I think that keeping guns out of the hands of people who can easily, very easily hurt themselves or others, gun suicides are incredibly high. Domestic violence is incredibly high, especially with gun violence. And I think that just working as hard as we can to keep guns out of the hands of those kind of people is where we need to end. You're a great public speaker. Thank you. Okay. So your testimony is very compelling. And one of the questions I have is the Laura Sobel situation. The woman who did the shooting, of course, can't be convicted and the process is not really good. What about these bills? Would this bill, would have prevented her from getting her gun? My understanding is that I can't remember if she has the background check or you might be familiar with that. But somebody like that, would this help in that situation in the future for people who usually are troubled? Yes, because it would stop her from as easily being able to buy the gun. She didn't buy the gun through legal or through like regulated gun. When she didn't go buy it at a store or anything, she got it from a friend. So these, so yeah, this bill would have stopped that. How would it have stopped that? Because she was already, she already wasn't allowed to own a gun under federal regulations. So she wouldn't have been able to buy the gun at a store or anywhere else. But she was able to buy the gun from a friend or an acquaintance or anybody else under the table. So this bill would have regulated that sale and prevented her from getting the gun. I understand that's what Bill says. Practical application, that's a black market sale. How would that have stopped it? There still will be a black market, but there's a lot of guns up there. And those kinds of transactions, specifically in that case, could still occur, could still happen. So you're saying that black market sales just under the table might happen anyway? Yes.  Yeah, I agree to that. I think there are definitely black market sales for anything. But in terms of regulating gun sales in general, I don't see how this would be a bad step in that direction towards keeping guns. Like of course there's always gonna be things that we can't regulate in our country. There's always gonna be things that happen under the table. But if there are things that we can regulate and there are ways that we can intervene, then I definitely think we should take those steps. Thank you. No, I'm not. David Chair with the Attorney General's Office for the record. I'll start by talking about S-55 that's passed by the Senate. Go through a little bit of that and then in terms of the law and the amendment and also a couple of words on the original S-55 on the storage and protection. Thank you. I mean, first of all, the Attorney General wanted me to pass along his appreciation to the young people who have been passionate and inspiring voices on this. And it's really remarkable of the work that they're doing and we appreciate their well-being here. So thank you for that. Speaking generally as a statement, the Principal Attorney General certainly believes that Vermont has a responsible culture of gun ownership and believes that in addition to that, we need to make sure that responsible people are the ones who are able to get access to firearms. To that end, he does support S-55 as passed by the Senate and I think the key developing piece of information that he does wanna convey to this committee and to the legislature is that as you may have heard, the NRA did file suit against the State of Florida for their under-21 gun ban. And the Attorney General is ready and willing and to vigorously defend under-21 gun ban should this legislature pass it out as well if the NRA chooses to sue the State of Vermont. As far as I know, there are other under-21 gun bans and I should say, they take various permutations. Some are possession bans on handguns, some are purchase bans on handguns and you've got the long gun category and there's purchase and possession so there's sort of four categories that we deal with and each of these states has slightly different permutations. As far as we know, it hasn't been challenged before so I'm not sure there's direct precedent to guide us. Speaking broadly, the DC versus Heller case had a very specific holding which was that there's an individual right to own a firearm and state or municipality can't ban the use of operable or the possession of operable guns in a home. Sorry, it took me a while to get that out. But it's important to note that it's a very specific and fairly narrow holding in that case. You can't ban the use of the possession of operable guns essentially the DC ban made it so that you couldn't have any operable weapon in your home. Many courts have grappled with Heller and grappled with the results of Heller and most of them have declined to extend it. There's been a lot of cases upholding gun safety laws around the country and in the second circuit, specifically, I think they've dealt with about four times in each case they found lawful. The gun safety measures that were in effect, these are mostly in New York State, coming out of New York State. So I just think that I can't speak to exactly what's gonna happen should that under 21 litigation come to Vermont, but speaking broadly, Heller's largely been limited to its holding by a lower course and we think we would be on safe ground. Of course, no responsible way will guarantee any outcome of any case but we're ready and able to defend that piece of it. In terms of the firearm storage piece specifically, and I understand this committee may want to not not ruin the flow of the legislation by making any additions to stuff that's already passed the Senate, but one thought that our office had and I wanna give credit to Carolyn Hanson who's here from our office also. One of the practical challenges that is faced when you're dealing with the state and specifically police departments holding non-evidentiary firearms is that they don't have the storage for it, they don't necessarily feel comfortable putting them in evidentiary spaces and there's a reluctance to do that. Should H-22 or whatever permutation, whatever bill H-22 becomes passed and should S-221 pass or whatever equivalent pass, you will potentially now have more non-evidentiary firearms coming into police department and some sort of provision in the gun storage piece saying that the money from sales that comes back to municipalities, right now the bill provides for I think it's two thirds, I could be misremembering the percentage. Some percent will go back to municipalities. If some language gets added in there to say that to the extent needed by municipality, this money shall be used for non-evidentiary storage of firearms, that may be a useful direction to give to municipalities given the fact that we are now trying to do a little bit more in terms of removing firearms from folks who pose a danger and that aren't necessarily gonna be evidence of the crime. So I think that could be useful. Again, I would defer to the committee's political judgment on navigating these through the legislative waters, but a suggestion to consider. Eric, you got that? Yeah, here, thank you. In terms of turning out to the O'Lan amendment, we would like a little bit more time, which is not to say we don't support anything here, but just we would like a little bit more time to review exactly what it is to compare it to other state laws and come back with a slightly more informed judgment on those pieces. There's a lot there. Again, we're not saying we're not for it, but in due caution and making sure we're checking what other states have done and what court rulings are, we just want another day or so. I know that there's gonna be testimony. I can provide that in writing or in person, hopefully, when the committee's taking up this bill tomorrow or Friday. I'm sorry, when you do that, if you could, you may have heard me ask James Pepper about just an opinion of what, if there's agreement that there should be a waiting period, what would be an appropriate waiting period? Sure, I can take a look at that. And David, I think I heard you say that you support the Senate version and I want to clarify, are you saying that the Attorney General's in favor of the clear and convincing level of proof and also to have a comment on the time period of 60 days versus up to one year? Yeah, so my comments were limited to S55 and I was using the term as passed by the Senate just to distinguish from the law amendment. That's the only reason I realized that might have been confusing, braziology. But if in any case, I'd be curious of whether your office has taken a position, I know I'm putting you on the spot. No, we have, so it's okay. So on S221, the Attorney General's position is that he supports the House version and he's also said, he thinks if the Senate version is what comes out of the legislature, that's an important improvement as well. So that's where we are. Good one, I'll go quick. So there's also H876, which is something that is additional language that is being considered to be put into S55. That's a bump stop, I don't know, man. So now I will come back all seven night, you'll see. Yeah, if you have any questions, I can answer. All right, thank you. Thank you. Can I see if Mr. Anderson is out here? Thank you. Right, that's it. Thank you. Good afternoon again, everyone. I brought Commissioner Cole with me today, that makes sure I don't really screw things up. So Tom Anderson, Commissioner of Public Safety. So my understanding, we're talking about S55, is that correct? So a couple of areas. So the genesis of this bill really started with, it's had sort of a tortured history of bill with the number of minutes it's gone through, but it really was, it started out for us in the disposition of firearms that are held by the Department of Public Safety. So right now the current statute is written as really an ineffective way for me to dispose of, for the state to dispose of firearms that it ends up with after criminal cases, or that come into possession of the Department of Public Safety just by law. And so it was really, the initial thing was to try to figure out a way to make that process more streamlined and better. And then I think, understandably, the Treasurer's Office was part of that process and was reluctant to be involved in the disposition of firearms, that they don't really have a whole lot of expertise in, don't know a whole lot about. So the idea, initially behind S55 was to make that process more efficient. For example, there was no provision in the existing bill that allowed any disposition of abandoned firearms. They had to be, they had to meet a very specific definition of unlawful and unsafe in order to be either destroyed or disposed of. So that was the genesis of it. And the bill, S55 right now, the portion of S55 that deals with this disposition of firearms is a much more efficient process for disposing them. It removed the Treasurer's Office from the process entirely and then involved simply the Department of Public Safety and VGS, which does all of the disposition of surplus property for the government, for the state, which is, this is more, this is more akin to. And just to give you a little bit of background, I gave you my buckets of guns that we have in possession of the state. So one bucket is these unlawful firearms that are by law are deemed to be unlawful. There are some that are unlawful per se and I think of those as machine guns, guns with obliterated serial numbers, guns that would be prohibited from anyone possessing at any time. And they're really defined under federal law as to what's a prohibited firearm per se. So those get destroyed because they can never be put back as a circulation. Then I have some unlawful firearms that are used in commission of criminal offenses that would then become unlawful. So that's one bucket of guns I've got, unlawful firearms. Then I have abandoned firearms. So these are guns that, a lot of these are suicide guns that have simply been used in the course of a suicide that the state police has gone out with. They may be guns that, hey, I got five guns from my uncle Johnny and I don't want them. And they're just abandoned. That's a big chunk of the firearms I have right now. So that's a second bucket of guns. Another bucket of guns are guns that are being held as evidence. So there are cases that are, they're simply being held as evidence and will be held until the disposition of those cases are completed. And a fourth bucket are guns that are being held for center of the like, for example, bail conditions, a relief from abuse, or maybe court ordered surrender firearms to a defendant that then end up in the possession of the Department of Public Safety that are being held. Those are more fluid because they can change. They might go back, and we're temporarily holding those in those buckets. They might go back to the person. They may end up becoming unlawful guns. And then they go over to my unlawful gun bucket. Same thing with the fire, the guns that are being held as evidence. They could, that's a more fluid bucket. They may end up going back to someone when the cases is resolved, when they're no longer needed as evidence. They may end up becoming unlawful firearms that then I'm stuck with trying to dispose of some way. So right now we have about 1,100 guns that we're storing within the state that fall into those four buckets. And of those four buckets, about 400 of them are the unlawful firearms and the abandoned firearms. The ones that are ready to get rid of them somehow. They cannot be getting rid of them yet. They have to be, the case has to go through. I've got to figure out, I believe from a view sword has got to be resolved, either it expires or not. And so those guns are, that's 600 or so, 700 of guns, they're just, they're still going to be held. It's really the 400 that we're trying to dispose of. So this bill would allow us to do that. And it would really put the burden on public safety and buildings and grounds to sell them for the state. In a reasonable and logical manner. So that's that part of the bill. I'm happy to take some questions on that. Quick question. So wouldn't it be easier just to destroy those 400 guns and not have to go through the whole sale process? That's another option. You could simply say that, unlawful guns or abandoned guns, you could authorize the Department of Public Safety simply to destroy those guns. So do you know why we want, or the Senate at least went in this direction? I mean, I shouldn't be asking that, I couldn't ask you that question before. See, I don't want to get into the intent, but what's your view of why we ended up with this bill? I think like all bills, I think there was some compromise that were reached and a way to address a problem that was a way that could be addressed that most people on both sides of the equation of the pro-fire arms or anti-fire arms could live within a way that allowed us to address a problem within the state that needs to be addressed in a way that is a compromise for everybody involved. So that's my understanding, but you could, that's another option. Just the power of the Department of Public Safety to destroy these firearms that end up in either as unlawful or abandoned guns. So is the concept that if we destroy the guns, that's somehow anti-challenged, is that correct? I don't know that, but that's one part of the equation. So that's, that was that part of S-55. So that would be very helpful to the Department of Public Safety for the state overall. I mean, I just, that just keeps, I just, that just keeps building up. And it's, you know, and that doesn't include the locals.  So that was kind of where I was going to go with my question. So these are all things that the, your department has in possession in some forms in the various buckets you talked about. And they're all in one place, one store in one. We do have them in one place and, well, the evidence ones are mostly held with barracks because they're evidence. But the 400 or so, we do have those, I believe, in one, roughly in one place. So if you got rid of the 400 in some manner, follow them or destroy them or whatever, you would have more capacity to store weapons that are firearms that would keep coming in through the various ways that we talk about. The buckets are going to continue to get refilled. And I know that storage of weapons in that situation is becoming a critical issue around this meeting. But I'm wondering, so it will address, may address the department's problem, the sub-proper period, or maybe it will be a problem if you're able to continue to get rid of guns over a period of time. But does it do anything to help the storage issues around other municipal departments around the state and about the also barracks, state police barracks issues of storage, that kind of thing. So the best way to do it is I'm obligated to take all the guns that are deemed to be unlawful. So let's say the bill just right now, I could destroy the guns that are unlawful or banned and we'd have to worry about them. We're still gonna have a storage issue because guns have to be stored for evidence. And so that falls to the responsibility of holding the guns as evidence, falls to the local police department for their cases, falls to the state police for our cases, and same thing for the relief from abuse order cases. They're generally held by the department who's involved with the case. Now what's their duty to be unlawful? So for example, if someone is convicted of an offense, the gun is now was evidence and that person now is a prohibited person under federal law or state law from possessing that gun. They're not getting that gun back. That's gonna now go into my unlawful bucket. Is that not my unlawful firearm that has to be disposed of in some way? Same thing with the relief from abuse. So that, if that's true, but then the guns being held at a local municipal, they have to be transferred to you? Yeah, that would be transferred to me after, and I have to take it under statute. I'm required to take those guns that are once they meet the definition of unlawful, I'm required to take them. So while they're still as evidence, that really falls to the department that are the police law enforcement agents that's got the case. Same thing with the relief from abuse orders. If eventually those become unlawful, the person becomes, and it's generally because the person who had the gun, who owned the gun is now a prohibited person under the federal or state law from ever having a gun again, and then they become unlawful and come to me in some, in some way. So I mean, it has sort of a trickle effect that it allows you to take more of those guns. It would be a flaw. It would be a flaw. Right now I don't have any way under, they're just flowing in. I guess what I'm really getting at is I'm trying to understand how much of a solution to our problem that we have about our inability to store firearms effectively or how much of the problem does this address? I mean, it would address, yeah, a big, 410 of a thousand guns. I mean, it would, it would, And that will relieve to some degree the smaller departments. Yeah, because I think it would enhance my ability to take unlawful guns again. So I do, I do think this, this bill would be a, would be a big step and at least, and is it perfect?  I mean, you know, it's gonna, we're gonna have to see how it goes and how, you know, how it works out. I can't say we may be back next year for some tweaks saying, hey, this didn't work quite right and it would be helpful if we had, you know, this amendment, this amendment to the bill. But right now I think this is the best. The abandoned guns is a huge issue because there's like no way to dispose of abandoned guns. And this is by just defining them and putting them under the, under this bill, that would be a huge step forward at least to be able to dispose of, of those guns. That's the bulk of my 410 are abandoned guns. Not the unlawful guns. The bulk of them are abandoned guns. The last question, if proceeds from the sale of their soul were to be used to help with the storage issue, do you have thoughts about how that would best be done? I wasn't quite sure but if the statute had a way that gets, gets divvied up, maybe, maybe. For the record commissioner of Billings and General Services, Chris Folt, so we just follow the same statutory requirement for distributing funds for surplus property. So it goes back to the department, line us in administrative handling charge for processing the sale, just like in any surplus property that the state has. For the local law enforcement agency, they would get two thirds of the proceeds for anything that they're providing to the commissioner of public safety that provides it to them. So I appreciate that that's the way it's done and I'm just curious whether that's the best way to do it. I mean, we figured for this bill, it was just cleanest to follow the regular process for how we dispose of abandoned and surplus property where the proceeds go. So we just referenced the existing statute. So that's all I've got on that portion of the bill. Hopefully that's not too controversial and it would be a tremendous benefit to at least get a more a process where it's really, we don't have a process right now for dispose. We really don't have a process and it would be helpful to have a process who will be perfect. I mean, telling me time will tell, but it will certainly, I think be better. I don't know what you're saying. So. And do you want to comment on any other sections? I don't, but I, you know, I thought that that's okay. But that was really the portion of the bill that I think we had the most. Sorry, that's really how it started. I know that a lot of many other things have been tagged on at this point, so. Fine, thanks very much. I think I had a good conversation. And so my question might be Mr. Cole. Sure. So if you're, how much of a problem would this be for you to handle this operation? You know, we have procedures for all surplus property. We would obviously have to look at different procedures on how we would handle this. You know, my thoughts are we'd probably sell it in lots, not individual guns, statue, sell it under consideration. What's required is to sell it to a FFL, a federally-enforced licensed dealer. You have to go through a universal background check. We would sell them as is. They would have to come pick them up, not mailing guns. So, you know, we would have to do some internal administrative policies to answer some of these logistical questions. You would be made whole by your fluid process. Yes, there's an administrative fee that we charge for the handling of surplus property and the rate is set by the commissioner of finance and management to ensure that we cover our operating costs at the surplus. So I think that's an important part of the bill is that any sale would be to an FFL, to a federal licensed, firearms licensee. So we're not warranting these guns. We would probably require waiver liability in any type of sale. So we, you know, they're sold as is, where is, come pick them up. We don't warrant that they operate. We make no warranties about them, that that really would flow to the FFL that's gonna make the purchase. With hopefully, you know, we'll work with the AG's office for a complete waiver liability to the state in any sale that is coming in. It's in the bill. Yeah, that is in the bill. That was one of the concerns that the treasurer had raised was liability issues. And so that was one of the things that we had wanted included in the bill. But as the commissioner indicated, we would also have a document signed by the FFL waiting liability for us. I'll try to call that because again, can you talk a little more about the liability if he's got things, perhaps might help us understand more. We have heard of conversations this morning from an FFL about some of the reservations they had because of liability that handled in transfers of guns, you know, absolutely, but because they're not our guns, you know, I haven't been able to check them, make sure they're safe and all that. And so, I mean, there was, you all also had those same kind of thoughts. So what are some, what are the liabilities that you're concerned about? The reason why you want to be exempt, what are the things that are making the state say, like, no, if I'm gonna, you know, pass these guns to somebody, I want no liability. What are the kind of protections that the state is trying to protect itself from? So I can speak to, it really, it's liability and warranty. So normally if you sell a product, you are warranting what you're selling, is that what you represent it to be. So, you know, the idea that we would warrant, put any kind of warranty on these guns, if we're warranting them that they're number one, they are what they say they are, that it is a six millimeter, whatever the gun is, if we're warranting it is what we say it is, it's operable, it's, you know, safe. We're making no warranties in that regard because that's not our business. I mean, we just don't have the ability to do that. I, you know, I could spend, I'm sure I get my firearms experts at the lab, could spend untold hours trying to figure out, figure that out when guns, and I'm just not prepared to do that. To me, the best way to do it is you are not, people that come in and buy these guns understand that they're buying these things as they are not warranted. If I say it's a cold 45, or you think it's a cold 45, that's what it is. I'm not saying it is, I'm not warranting it is. And that that all passes to the FFL. Now we may go through a year of this and we can't sell them. No, we don't buy them with that, with those kinds of conditions. And then I may be back in front of the committee asking for the ability to destroy them because we can't sell them at the inability to sell them. But right now, I think the best way for the state to do this is, you know, with a full waiver of liability from the buyers and for a clear understanding, it's not warranted, they are not warranted at all. I have a belt, here's your belt. Is there anything you want to say to the pativer? No. Thanks so much. All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, great. Yeah, thanks. Okay, let's go to the next one. H639 is a roll call. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're here now. Okay. What was that? Is that a roll call? That's a roll call. Remember you've done this. It's so nice. It's nice. It's nice. Did you get home? Did you get home? I did. She does not have fever. Oh, that's good. You're alive. He says it's a snow day. That's right. It's a snow day. It's a snow day. It's a snow day. Here's everything. Ready? All right. Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Auburn Watersong from the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. And I just, if you could bear with me, my computer actually officially died. The hardware and everything died yesterday. So I'm without a computer. So I'm doing this the old fashioned way. And... On the phone? On the phone. With a paper? And then I have to go to my phone at different points. So I'm going to pull up what's on my phone here. Right. The phone. So anyway, thank you for inviting me to speak to you about S55. Before I begin, we've been talking a lot about firearms recently here. And I feel like it would just be odd for me to sit here and talk about this working in the field that I work in without mentioning a recent homicide. Wanda Sandwell of Royalton, who was shot and killed by her strange husband a week ago last Sunday. So I just wanted to bring that into the room for a moment. So thank you all for your hard work on firearms legislation already this session and last session, including your work on H675 and H422. I know your work is not easy and you bear a huge responsibility when dealing with matters of life and death. And the network thanks you for your focus on victim safety. I'm here representing our membership as you know and the victims with whom they work. Our membership consists of advocates across Vermont at 15 programs working to serve victims of domestic and sexual violence, dating violence and stalking. Last year alone, 2017, our 15 member program served more than 7,000 victims and responded to more than 17,000 hotline calls. In 2016, we don't have the 17 data yet, in 2016, 79 police officers responded to over 3,400 incidents involving domestic violence. It's my hope that my testimony today will be heard as a plea to continue to assist the victims in Vermont whose lives are deeply affected by the presence of firearms in these households. While Vermont has a long history of responsible gun ownership and a proud tradition of hunting, we have to call attention to the disproportionate effects of firearms and domestic violence-related homicides in Vermont. I think you are well aware of this count that we have since 1994, from 1994 through 2016, 58% of all domestic violence-related homicides were committed with firearms. So this is very important work that you do. We know that 80 of those domestic violence homicides were committed with firearms. It's important to note that these numbers do not include the abuse and the control and the torture that is suffered by victims of abusers who use firearms to threaten their partners. And I was just talking with Carolyn Hanson from the AG's office, and in 2017, we know that there were 10 domestic violence-related homicides. Not all of those with firearms, but I just wanted to point out that the issue continues to remain something that definitely makes Vermont not feel like the safe state for certain people. So again, I'm just grateful that you're looking at this issue. So, two S-55s specifically. The storage part of S-55 the network is in support of. We would also just like to go on the record saying we would support the AG's recommendation for some language that would direct some of the funding going to law enforcement to go for the storage of non-evidentiary firearms because we see that that's gonna be coming with these new laws that we put in place. But also, I have heard since we started the conversation around H-422 well over a year ago now and as I go around to the coordinated community response teams around the state that talk locally about what's happening in their own communities around domestic violence. I hear from law enforcement this issue of storage really being challenging for them. So, and I appreciate Representative Conquest all your questions around what that looks like on the local level because that really is where it's critical for the RFA firearms because that's where they land until they're unlawful and then they can move. So, we were really grateful that this was taken up because what it actually did was just provided an off-ramp for some of these firearms so that the flow can happen so that we're not hearing so much from law enforcement that there isn't any storage space. And then if we add this language that the AG recommends then that would even give them some funding which because right now as it stands there is a possibility for them to get some revolving loan fund money but it's a loan. It's not funny. It's not just money that comes to them just to have them build and keep storing. So, I think this would be a great new addition. So, we're really happy with the storage move from the Treasurer's Office to BGS and the testimony that we heard on the Senate side leads us to believe that all the parties are working together to make that happen so that flow will be beneficial to victims. As far as the background checks piece and I'm not sure what you had for testimony this morning so I apologize because I was over in the Senate and maybe you've heard some of this already but I'm so stopping for you. Not for me. Not for me. So, as you know in many states gun laws leave victims of domestic violence unprotected and one in seven unlawful gun buyers stopped by a federal background check is a domestic abuser. One in seven. And we know that since NICS has been in place since 1998 NICS has blocked more than 300,000 gun sales to domestic abusers. Now, federal law only requires background checks for gun sales at licensed dealers as you know and I'm sure you heard testimony about the private sales being an issue here in Vermont. And that is the case and again states that require background checks on all handgun sales see 47% fewer women shot to death by intimate partners. 47% fewer women shot to death by intimate partners than states that do not have this requirement. So, you know when I think about all the different firearms issues that you're working on right now I know not one of them for domestic violence victim survivors is a guarantee to answer, right? I mean we heard from Stella Gravel we heard her say that 422 might have kept her daughter alive and we heard and we know that in other cases it might not have. And so the idea that we could put all enough laws in place so that we're doing the best we can to protect victims and their children in the state of Vermont that's to me what's most important. So it's gonna take more than just, okay, each 422 background checks, storage, all of these things playing together will create a system that's much safer for victims. So we appreciate that. So in short, the network supports this bill. I haven't had a lot of time to look at the amendments but the thing about the amendments is I don't know how domestic violence related they are so I'll have to look at them and I can come back and comment at another time. I did wanna say something which I've been saying since each 422 was first taken up here, way back, a couple of iterations back now that in current Vermont law, and you're familiar with this, current Vermont law allows for the confiscation of firearms right now only at two points in a domestic violence situation. When the court orders the removal at the point of a final relief from abuse order between intimate partners and that is federal law, mandated federal law, and then the other one is following a conviction of a violent crime which is defined in our statutes in Title 13. So those are the two places really in the whole scheme of what we could be doing in the state laws around firearms and domestic violence victims and way, way back at the beginning of H422, I pointed that out and I mentioned and I can't let this opportunity go without mentioning again that we do not have in our emergency relief from abuse order statute or our final relief from abuse order statute anything that orders the relinquishment of firearms in that process. That said, I do wanna point out, I don't wanna alarm anyone because I do wanna point out that our courts, our judges, it's a common practice for them to order firearms be removed. In fact, it's on their form, the temporary and the final form that firearms be removed. However, it's not in our current statute and I wanted to just say that's another small step toward improving a process for victims and making sure firearms are a clear piece of those decisions that are being made. So I always wanna always throw that one back out at you when I'm talking so that you're not forgetting those pieces. So would that be similar to what we did in H675 in terms of codifying. Codifying, correct, just yep, yep. So could you provide language for us? So I wanna say in full disclosure that I provided language over in the Senate today on H422 and so maybe you and I could talk about, I don't know whether you want me to present that language here and they present that link and I don't know how that was. We can figure that out. We ought to work it out. Right, we're parallel. Okay. But I'm thinking that that could be something that we could consider. Right, right. At the table in this description here because you have read it quite a bit. I know. I have. And then the other piece to that, yeah, so I have language for you that I could send. The other piece to that is I would just add that there's a remaining piece to that issue that I don't wanna leave. I don't wanna leave you thinking that by putting that statute in place, we're actually fixing in its entirety the problems we have in relief from abuse orders and relinquishment of firearms. One of the problems that we have is actually operationalizing that and making sure that all the firearms are retrieved and that when a person says I don't have any, how do we prove the person that those questions still remain? That's not gonna be addressed in the language that I would propose. The language I would propose is just for really the court to order that and it doesn't go any further than that at this point. May I ask you again? I don't know where the off-topic load is but we can stay there for a minute because actually over the weekend, and all that I thought that we had done well to improve our phase actually as a student at my kid's school that is doing an externship or whatever you say, at an umbrella I brought an issue to my attention and actually I reached out to the Ledge Council and they said, yeah, I think she's right and so I went and stopped too and so I'm kinda reading off what I got back from Ledge Council and this deals with our effect because we had done work about even like not limited to court hours to try to get that relief, but apparently under 12 VSA 5134, a complaint for tip rate order with respect to stalking or sexual assault still must be done during regular court hours and must have a supportive affidavit in order to get the order. Is that right? Is that still like the role that we have to do?  That just seemed like crazy to me. I mean, let's talk about like, so do you, I don't know. No, I don't. Do you have a language work around for that too or no? I don't have one, but I'm happy to provide you with one if you'd like. Yeah, that is an issue for us.  I was like, what? That's right, and that's also a question for Judge Bruce and around how the superior court works. So I don't know, that really is kind of where it needs to start because I could present some language that just wouldn't be doable, in the scheme of. But it kind of similar to the little amendment. Like you said, it was just like to get the conversation out there and like, so I think nothing else but let's just see if there's, so I mean, I don't mind at least even using your language as our starting point. Sure. So, thank you. Yeah, thank you. So, following up on the storage issue, and I know we'd have to get testimony from someone else, but in your conversations with local enforcement about what they need in order to be able to take in weapons from RFAs, et cetera, have they talked about how, in what way money would be useful? So I'm thinking, well, the amount of money that might be generated from selling guns is not enough to build anything. Right, right. But, I mean, do they rent storage space? No, I kind of doubt it. I mean, I don't think they probably want them off their premises, but I'm just wondering, do you know from talking to them how more money might be useful to them in order to enhance their capacity to store? I feel like that's a question for police departments to answer, and I understand that it varies from police departments to police departments. Like South, I think South Burlington has a greater capacity, but I grew up in the Northeast Kingdom, and I know there are filing cabinets with evidence. So I'm just saying, like I know there's a great disparity between how different law enforcement agencies handle their storage, so. Got a testimony from someone else. Yeah. They've not been talking about it. Yeah, no, I mean, I generally hear like we can't afford it, and things are full, like our storage space is full and we need more storage space, so I generally hear that. And, but I think it would be better hear from them what they're looking for exactly. Yeah, thanks. Auburn, you started your testimony talking about Wanda Sandville. Oh, thank you. I read the newspaper council that anything, and my question to you is, is there anything that we're presently working on? Is it written so it would have stopped that tragedy because her husband or estranged husband was a convicted felon?  And as far as I know, now they're still trying to figure out where he got it from, but he. I know I have. You've read all these bills. Is there anything that would have stopped that? Well, so I have the same questions around the case because the case is still fresh and knew that I don't have the details on to know. Again, like you say, he was prohibited from having that firearm. You know, I think right now not having any of those details, so not really knowing what could have been done looking back. I'm just sort of looking forward on what are the places? Where are the gaps? I mean, and I don't know that it would apply to a Wanda situation or not. And I think there's a whole, along with changes to our firearms laws in Vermont to make things safer. There's a lot of other things that also need to be done around like community coordination for these families, for community wraparound services. How do we hold perpetrators accountable? How are they engaged and not isolated? How are they kept supervised? How are they, you know, there's all of those other questions as well because getting a firearm, like you're saying, if he was prohibited, right? So the, and he was on furlough. So there's all these, there are all these questions that are out there. And I think it's not one simple answer. It's many that work together. And I wish I had a simpler response. Can I expand on that just a little bit? Sure. Because we took testimony earlier this year, you know, it's been nine, 10 weeks and it's blurred me right now, but when we talked about, and I don't even remember what Bill it was, but we talked with the folks from Corrections about the ankle bracelets. This guy had a court order to stay away from her. If he had had an ankle bracelet on and it would have been monitored, somebody somewhere in some room could tell that he was, you know, he was in a location they should have been in and police should have been sent. You know, I guess I don't expect an answer, but God darn it, we're fishing without bait. You know, we need to figure out here what we can do to protect, you know, these innocent people. And again, I've had a loss to figure out where to go next. Well, can I just say, I mean, I think this is one of the great things that our Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission does. They take every case and they tease out all of the pieces of what happened, what could have happened, what didn't happen correctly. They listen to witnesses in the case, children that were there on the scene or, you know, partners, all sorts of people. And then they actually divvy up, like what parts of the system failed and what do we need to make better? And I think, and every year they come out with a report that tells us where we're failing and where we need to get things back on track of what we need to do. And I mean, Carolyn's sitting right here, she's the chair of the Fatality Review Commission, but that, I mean, that's the excellent work that they do there with, and then often the Domestic Violence Council is also working at concert with those recommendations. So, you know, it's not easy. I'm going to show my ignorance here, but do we, like, does this committee get a copy of that report? I think I've sent it to you, but I can send it to you if you don't have it. I don't think I've ever read one before and I've been in there for four years. I think I sent one last year in my testimony in the 2016 one, and I, yeah, I can give you the 2017 one. Yeah, I'll be right here. Or do you have it? I might, but it would be great for that committee, I think. Right, it's really, I mean, they're really enlightening. I mean, they take apart the whole, like, what didn't work and what cases and how, yeah. Okay, thanks. To follow up on Gary's question, the background checks, so in this case, what we're just talking about, you know what I'm saying? We don't know all about the facts. Right. But could closing that private sale loophole, you know, could it be one more tool that could get us closer to, you know, the prevention of those fatalities similar to the Lord's Noble? You're in the, Right, I heard that, yeah. By Eleanor Riley, if that's what you'd buy. For sure. For sure. I mean, private sales that are not regulated, that there's no background check through, you know, we don't know who's getting a firearm and how and, you know, if they can get a firearm in a parking lot, but they're prohibited. But the transfer is happening without it being known that they're prohibited. Yeah, and that's the problem. That can happen. Definitely, definitely. It makes it harder and it might be a deterrent. It might be a deterrent. It might slow down the impulses too. I mean, we know one of the things about firearms that makes them so lethal is that the decision is this fast and somebody's dead, you know? And so, slowing down any of that process is always helpful, I think. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Yeah. Thank you. Sure. Great. Thank you. And let's see. Oh, camera. Okay. And she said her testimony was of the letter and her traveling. Oh, okay. Okay, all right, thank you. Mr. Tim Schatz, coming. Oh, Commissioner Schatz, I do. We wait for a minute. Yeah, sorry. But he's not here, so. Oh, okay. Commissioner Schatz. Oh, yeah, yeah. What's the, what's the, what's the. What's the, what's the, what's the. What's the, what's this? Oh, okay. Sir, I'm just going to add to the plan. Yeah. I wonder if he had that. He challenged it. Yeah, yeah. I'm going to pick it up, I'm going to pick it up. Mr. Michael. I'm going to pick it up. Add to the list. Wow. What are you doing? Oh, let me pick it back here. Oh, was it ghetto house there? Yeah. They're trying to compile. Oh, I haven't been doing that. It's true. It is conscious. That's true. I think that we're going to get back to us. Back to us with some information. Yeah. Yesterday. Yeah. I've sent Mike some documents to post as well. So I've been doing it all over the last half an hour though. So hopefully you'll see them. Not all of it, but some of them recently have come then. So they may take a few minutes to get up to the committee webpage. But yeah, during the conversation yesterday, a couple of issues had come up that the committee asked me to take a look at. And I've got some information I think might be useful. I wasn't able to be here this morning when you spoke with Mr. Perot from the Waterbury. So the FFL. So he may have given you some information that I may give you already. I mean, maybe he didn't give you the actual sites to the Code of Federal Regulations. It's where this is. You can see the language, but you may have talked about it with him already. I'm not quite sure about that. One quick point though on another subject before we get to sort of this record keeping, just kind of the big picture of the stuff that I was looking at after yesterday's hearing, was that I think Representative Wilhoit, you had asked about the statute of limitations for the crimes in the background check. Yes. So I was right. It is a three-year period. The general three-year criminal statute of limitations period would apply to the new misdemeanors that are created in the background check statute. Remember, there are two different ones. One for the seller, the chance for or, not completing the background check, or not conducting the background check on the transfer as they're supposed to. And the other one for someone to make fraudulent false information to the dealer during the course of the check. So those are the two criminal pieces, one year misdemeanor for each, and there's a three-year limitations period. Thank you. Sure. So there are some questions about record keeping and how this record retention works with respect to both, because you think about it, you've got sort of two parties involved in the background check, right? Because the purchaser goes, and in the current law, the purchaser goes to the FFL in order to make a purchase if they're buying one from someone who's engaged in the business of selling firearms. Under the proposal, remember, the transfer and the transfer, you both have to go, right? And do the, and have the background check done by the FFL in the same way that they do it now when they sell something from their own inventory. So you probably, did you hear this guy? You probably talked to him about form 4473. Yeah. Keep going. Yeah. Yeah. So did you see, take a look at the form? Did you see it? That should be out. Yeah. Okay. Good. So I forwarded that along yesterday. So you have the form. And it actually contains, interestingly, some of the information about it. We look at the regulation, too, but I noticed, not at least on my copy, if you go down, is everybody, can you pull up the form and take a look at it? You're interested. So, well, first of all, before we look at how the form is kept, retention-wise, under Code of Federal, let me see if you have this up on your site yet. The 27 Code of Federal Regulations 478.124. And this might be, I think, I titled it as something like FFL, record keeping requirements, something like that. So this is the actual requirement in the federal regulations that says, if you're a dealer, you cannot sell a firearm to anybody unless you fill out one of these 4473 documents. So generally, that's where the prohibition is quite clearly in the Code of Federal Regulations. And it shows also how they have to be maintained. So these FFLs have to maintain them in alphabetical order, chronological by date of disposition, and you'll see that as well on the form itself. So then if you go to the form, the 4473 form itself, and you look at page three, at the very bottom, you'll see like, after you get to the part that you fill out, there's another part that says notes and instructions, kind of starts like that. Bottom left-hand column of that. So whoever's purchasing the firearm, filling out this form is going to be notified of the information that's down there on the bottom. And that says as well, after the transfer or seller has completed the firearm's transaction, he must make the completed original ATF form 4473, which is this. And any supporting documents part of his or permanent records. So this has to deal with how long the FFL has to retain it. Pozana says forms 4473 must be retained for at least 20 years, and after that period may be submitted to ATF. You might follow that. So there's two different places that we're talking about where some records may be. And right now we're dealing with the dealer. So the dealer has to keep a 4473 when the response was that it's okay to go ahead with the transaction. So the person didn't come as a prohibited person. So when the transaction is approved in the background check, they have to keep it for 20 years. And go on to the top of the next column. Although it also just the same piece that I just read from CFRs in there as well. The flying may be retained by chronological, alphabetical, numerical, as long as the transfer or seller's completed form 4473 is filed in the same manner. So these will be retained at the dealer's place of business. Now what about if the form, what if it comes back denied, or if they stop doing it? So they're, hey, the person comes up, their name comes up, can't do it. What do they have to do with the form then? If the transfer or firearm is atop of the next column is denied or canceled by NICS, or if any other reason the transfer is not completed after a NICS check is initiated, the licensee must retain the form 4473 for at least five years. So you've got a five-year retention policy if you get a ding basically, and a 20-year retention policy if it's a clear background check and the sale goes forward. So that is both in the Code of Federal Regulations and actually on the form itself. So the person filling it out will see what's going to happen to their form after they fill it out and leave it with the dealer, which you have to do. So that's that same statement that was in the, that's in the form. It's always in a separate section of the Code of Federal Regulations. That's 478.129, Title 27, which is also loaded onto your webpage so you can see the language there. It's no different than what I just said, but it's helpful sometimes to see the substantive legal provision say the same thing, 20 years if it's a, if the transaction goes forward, not less than five years if it does not. So that's what the FFL is going to do. Next question that everybody happens with, what about NICS, right? What about, you know, the FBI? For whom, which is the agency within which the National Criminal Background Check System works? So they have very different, in some cases really no record keeping requirements. In fact, the opposite is true. So if you hook up, and you should have also on your pads a different document which says ATF record retention procedures, and that's also in the Code of Federal Regulations that's at 28 CFR 25.9. So what does ATF have to do with these documents? Generally speaking, if it's a positive, or I shouldn't say a positive, if there is no finding that the buyer is a prohibited person, so the sale goes forward, they have to destroy the record within 24 hours. So there will be no record there, at least up to 44.73, pretty quickly after they communicate to the dealer, hey, this person's okay, go ahead and make the sale. So that is in 25.9, B1 Roman numeral 3, hold that up. So Eric, what was the name? I don't think I see it here. I have one from good, it's an ATF firearm regulation. Yeah, that should be it. Cause we're in the next background. Okay, now you might be right. So if you pulled it up, and you go down to, actually you can look at all of them, cause it's helpful to see all of them here. If you look at B, so there's this audit log. I think we're in the NICS background. Oh, so it is, not an ATF? It shows retention policies. It could lead retention and destruction of records in the system across the top like that. The index records versus transaction. If you look at 25.98, cause it's the very first sentence, I realize I have to hit the hyperlink, but I'll go down the weeds. But the index records, those are kept indefinitely, but then I see where you are with B3, about the audit log records, which have the identifying information. Right. But I just, anyway, that's a very big difference. I wonder what the index records are, but anyway, I can follow up. No, that's a good question. That's a good one to follow up on. I noticed that as well. I think, well, ordinarily an index would not have that kind of identifying information, but hopefully we'll uncheck to be sure. But you're right. So these index records are kept indefinitely, but the audit records, which is the one that contains the identifying information, type of transaction, that sort of thing, those are, if you go down to contents, Roman number one, if it's a denied transaction records, they're retained in the audit log for 10 years. Now getting denied is because someone's going to have had a criminal record that prohibits them or, you know, be subject to one of the other nine categories of prohibited persons. If it's open, remember that's where, if they don't get an answer within that three-day period, that's, I'm looking at number two now, then it's destroyed after 90 days. And under subdivision three, all identifying information on behalf of the transferee, if it's an allowed transaction, it has to be destroyed within 24 hours. So Eric, am I right in taking that, the information that's on that form is about just really identifying the person who's attempting to purchase the gun. They don't, they're not sending the information about what firearm they're trying to purchase, the serial number. You mean in 4473 in the form when they have to fill out? Yeah, the thing that's going to next doesn't identify the firearm and it's zero number. That's kept by the... the seller. But is that right? I think that's right. Yeah, I think the seller puts that number down on the form when they're making the sale to the purchaser, but it's not on the part that's sent to the next... So any of those records that are in the central database for however long don't contain the firearms identification and association with the person? I want to double check that before I say yes for sure, I think that you're right. So there are some other interesting limitations on use of this information by NICS and by the FBI. So if you continue to scroll down a little bit on the same document we were just looking at, you'll see in subparagraph three, it's called Limitation on Use. Anybody see that? So this says that NICS includes... may not be used by any department agency officer or employee of the United States by which any system for registration of firearms, firearm owners or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons who are prohibited from receiving a firearm bar, 18USA 922G deals with a couple of prohibited people, prohibited categories. So there's this express piece in there about not being able to create a firearm registration system. And that same subject, on that same topic, this I don't... it was not able to... because it's like a huge federal budget bill, but I decided not to log up your iPod through that. But within the federal appropriation for ATF every year since 2011, there's been language that says, I'll just read it to you, because it goes through all the ATF appropriation, then there's some provisals after. So this one has been in there every year. Provided that no funds appropriated herein or hereafter shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing within the Department of Justice, the records or any portion thereof of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by federal firearms licensees. Can I follow that? So it's basically a prohibition on any consolidation or centralization of records of firearms sales by FFLs, which they do via saying whatever you can use it money for. And in your view of this forum, because I've been doing it myself then since I look at this morning, I haven't read that whole section yet. Under that privacy pause there on the 4473, it does provide a solicitation of the information authorized under 18 USC 923G. So if you looked at that and see how it can be solicited and basically how broad of an authorization that is or not, because I'm just wondering like if there is a way like maybe privately or independently, this could be that obviously you've gathered this information. Right, I know a lot of brokers or somebody like that. Yeah, yeah. And so I'm just curious about that. Because that's the least on the forum I'm looking at. That's the very first line. Yeah. The solicitation solicitation is authorized under. Who has that? I have not looked at that question. Oh, that's an interesting question. So I'm on. So I went, so I found my ATF forum that's here with everybody. This is on page 6 of 6 under all the stuff. Right. And it's the next to last section. And again, you all pass the privacy action information. Yeah, privacy action information. That very first sentence. Yeah. Right there. Yeah, I'll take a look at that. Interesting question. So that's all I have. We talked about yesterday and a lot to kind of page through in your on the documents. Sorry to load you down with that stuff. It is pretty much relevant to what you were thinking about. And I don't know if it deals with any of the specifics that you spoke about this morning with the gentleman from Waterbury too. I'm not sure. But that's what I have for now. And you already went through the amendment that I drafted yesterday. Is that right? The one that you were talking about, the one to S55 this morning. Thank you. So thank you, Eric. Sure. We also discussed about the constitutionality of the Benimus, of the angel in this. We talked about this today and I'm not sure if there's any other research there that has come to light or anything else distinguishing what is being close here versus what other states have. You know, I've looked at it a little bit as well. I think, you know, I don't have anything to say that would be too inconsistent from what you've heard. I would say that we're still a little bit unclear about the numbers of states that have this. You know, my numbers were a little bit different, but maybe I wasn't looking at it and maybe James saw something that I didn't, which is if anything likely. No, I think I did miss a overestimate the overstate number. So I need to, I'll correct the record when I have the exact number. But Elise, Elise, please bring them around. I think that that's when it was that I mean that there really haven't been challenges to this yet. Was that correct? So basically it's still kind of an open question. Was that correct? There's a complaint file. But it hasn't been resolved yet. Not to a complete ban, but there was. So there was this one challenge. It was like a fifth circuit case that to the federal prohibition on I think under 21s, possessed the sale of handguns to under 21s. And that was upheld. And that's the law. Yes. But there was a challenge to it. Like a challenge to it as a violation of the Second Amendment and a violation of Heller. And the court has interesting analysis. A little bit different than the Second Circuit's approach in the New York State Rifle Association case, which is sort of how firearms restrictions would get analyzed in Vermont as part of the Second Circuit now. But that restriction was upheld. We're interested in one of the couple things it said. One point was that age restrictions on firearms have sort of had this historical basis. So that it sort of took it out of the firearms heightened scrutiny analysis completely. And said, yeah. But it did go on to say, well, since we want to be sure, we'll assume for the second argument that that's not the case. And we'll analyze it under the intermediate scrutiny test from New York State Rifle and from a number of other circuits. Was it substantially related to an important government purpose and found that it was? But one of the factors that it pointed out was, well, look. And similar to, I think, what James had talked about with Heller, it did mention that it's not a ban on sale of all firearms. It's only handguns. So that person in that age group, say 18 to 20, would still have the ability to defend him or herself in their home, both with another type of firearm that they could purchase and with a firearm that they could be gifted. So that's sort of relevant to the analysis under the band that you're looking at in S-55, because that also was only a prohibition on sale. So I think there's arguments on both sides of that. On the one hand, does it potentially, because it's an infringement on somebody's right to sort of gain access to any firearm for possession, I mean, sorry, for self-defense, and it certainly would reach into the home because it's a ban on sale regardless. So that could cause some heightened scrutiny of whether or not it's substantially related to an important government interest, and what we have in public safety. On the other hand, it's not a ban on possession. So there's nothing in the language in S-55 that would prevent anyone from that age group of having a firearm to defend themselves. They just have to obtain it by another means. So it's certainly a novel question. It's not like it's, I think, other than Florida, the states I've seen that suggest they have this full ban on 21-year-olds purchasing firearms are only two, Hawaii and maybe Illinois, and Hawaii's got some exceptions for hunting, and you've talked about that, and Hawaii's got some exceptions for that, and the Illinois one is really sort of connected to a permitting system that is only roughly similar. So there aren't many states that have it, and so there isn't a lot of, actually there isn't any as far as I can tell, case law analyzing whether or not it's a constitution. We've got this one case for the 21-year-old and under purchase of handguns, and then you have the complaint that was filed only Saturday night, so it was only filed over the weekend. But I would say that as other people have said, that claim is color-able, right? It's hard to say what a court would say. I think there's strong arguments defending the age restriction. There's at least a reasonable basis for filing the complaint, and as with a lot of these cases, you have to wait and see what a court might say. And I think I heard that the AG's office say earlier today anyway that if there was a lawsuit, they would feel like they would be more than willing to defend it. But with many of these firearms regulations, I don't think it would be a surprise to see some of them challenged in court. It should be a shock, but there seem to be strong basis for defending them, as well as reasonable basis for challenging them. So did you get a chance to look into the Hunter or Firearms Safety course and what that's all about? I think we were going to try to super on to Michael Brady. Yeah, yeah. Give him a better idea. We're still talking about that. Okay. And then there's also a, okay, right, so Hunter and then Firearms, which I might understand is they're two different things. Oh, really? Okay. Actually, James, so I was talking to a gentleman out on the hallway, so he was asking about Firearms Safety course, which is more expansive and then the Hunter Safety course and then the exemptions. Did I get that correctly? That's what he was suggesting. Yeah, yeah. So, I don't have any questions about that. There's something. Mike, straight to the point. Yeah, I'll ask him about that. The witness who could explain those. Can I just add, the one thing that I was interested in finding out was this field component. We heard a testimony about the practical element and the handbook element, but I was under the impression that very few places in Vermont still have the field component element, that that's kind of a vanishing thing, but I don't know if that information's accurate because that would be kind of a big difference, sort of. It might be, I'll ask Mike about it as well, but it might be something that someone from Fish and Wildlife could be able to answer that question now. Oh, well, Commissioner Porter, it'd be fun to have him. Actually, on both of those questions, it might be useful to hear from him. Can Mike, can Mr. Porter have any questions? Hi, Eric. I've ordered you. Jansen had sent all of us something from President Burlington, questioning the constitutionality of the... That ain't ready yet. He just, he saw, I asked him, he said, would you share this with everyone, like, okay. So anyway, he claims that we're in the Vermont Constitution, but I'm constitutional, and anyway. Did you just send it? Yeah, so just welcome your, the site's a very old Vermont Supreme Court case. Sure, it's the one from Roland, right? They're telling me there's only been two cases. If it's talking about Article 16, there's only been two cases. The one that had a rot one that said no one could possess a handgun in the city unless they had been approved by the Chief of Police. Yeah, Thorpe v. Rutland? Yeah, and then there's a more recent one from 68 or something that had to do with... Is it Maddington or Burlington, or is it Central Vermont Railway? I don't know, maybe there's another one. The only other one I'd heard of was the the law that is basically, I don't think it was a jacket, I think it was, it says you can't carry a loaded guy in your car. I think there's a state statute that says that. Rifle. You can't have a loaded rifle in your car. Right. And that was challenged under Article 16, and that was had propelled. Well, yeah, what specifically do you know what the holding was? It was actually somewhat, you know, roughly, it's relatively brief, but it's sort of a rough similarity to kind of what you may recall Justice Scalia saying in Heller, which is that, you know, this language doesn't mean that the state can't enact reasonable regulations on use of firearms, and this is reasonable. It wasn't a lengthy analysis of it. I think that was sort of a rough, rough synopsis of it. But those, I have both of those, and I can have those posted too if you want to take a look at them. Great. Yeah. Take a look at the email because the number of points regarding age of majority and if they just be helpful to get your opinion on it. Sure. You're going to know everything there is to know about this. My retention is not that great, so bye. Then I'm in real trouble. Any other questions for... Thanks, sir. Thank you. Sure. So let's take... I believe we have all our questions with Jay. So let's take a break and...