| Bernard - This week, the House Judiciary Committee has picked up and modified H.230: An act relating to implementing mechanisms to reduce suicide. This is a priority bill, and it was just voted out of House Judiciary - so it made crossover (which is today). From our perspective, there are three substantive parts: - Safe Storage / Child Access Protection (CAP)
- Expansion of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs)
- 72-hour Waiting Period
Safe Storage / CAP The Federation fully supports that firearm owners need to be responsible with the firearms they own. We also however understand that the Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS) ruled in DC v Heller that it is unconstitutional to require a person to have all of their firearms locked up or inoperable. Requiring that all of your firearms be locked up is also unconstitutional under NYSRP v Bruen. Under Bruen, if a law impacts the 2nd amendment, it is presumptively unconstitutional UNLESS that law is in line with historical analogue and tradition.
There is no such historical analogue that required citizens to keep their firearms locked up as this defeats the ability to use a firearm for self-defense. Constitutionally: The need to be able to immediately respond to a violent confrontation is an unalienable right that supersedes the State's interest in trying to keep people safe. Expansion of ERPOs H.230 looks to expand the people who can file an ERPO to include Family and Household Members, whereas currently an ERPO can only be filed by the Attorney General or State's Attorney. Today, nothing prevents anyone from contacting the AG's Office or State's Attorney with an ERPO request, we are not aware of such requests being turned down, and we believe it is proper to have some vetting of the legitimacy of an ERPO case BEFORE it gets submitted into our court system which already has a significant backlog as Judge Zonay pointed out. Our real complaints with existing ERPO law is two-fold: We believe that the standard of evidence is too low (Preponderance as opposed to Clear and Convincing) for a Temporary ERPO, and futher that these laws allow for firearms to be relinquished / confiscated without Due Process - which is fundamentally unconstitutional.
72-Hour Waiting Period In testimony before the House Committee on Health Care (HCHC), there were only 2 incidents brought to light where a person who was intent on suicide went to a gun store, bought a firearm and then immediately used it to kill themselves. There is no question that these are two very tragic deaths, performed by people who were intent on taking their own life. Across that same 10-year period of time however, and according to the FBI NCIS data, there were 440,881 background checks completed in Vermont. It is not unreasonable to think that out of all those 440,881 sales, there were some number who purchased them specifically because they felt their lives were in danger, or they otherwise felt they would be more secure with a firearm for self-defense. Losing a life to suicide is devastating. It would be at least as devastating to lose the lives of people who wanted to live, but who were denied the ability to purchase and possess a firearm in a rapid manner when they could pass a background check. Under Bruen, a waiting period will be found to be unconstitutional for anyone who already owns a firearm, and it will likewise be found to be unconstitutional for someone who doesn't. Martin Luther King is quoted as saying "A right delayed is a right denied". What part of that does this Legislature not understand? Summary H.230 was passed out of Committee this morning, 7 For with 4 Against, with that 4 including 1 Democrat who is also a lawyer. We expect a spirited fight on the House floor when H.230 gets there, and then it will be on to the Senate where we will continue to fight this unconstitutional bill. This is NOT really a "gun bill". It is a bill about our Constitution and the protections that our Bill of Rights provide, with the result being that many of our legislators are happily rationalizing their need to thumb their nose at SCOTUS, and are emotionally moving onto unconstitutional ground that will force court action where Vermonters will pay to defend an unconstitutional bill. It's SHAMEFUL. We will provide you with further updates, but for the moment please take the time to find your Representatives, and then contact them about your concern over them ignoring our Constitution and their Oath of Office.
We will keep you informed of how else we can fight this bill.
Should you be interested in a list of bills we are watching, we update that list regularly on our website, which you can find here. Thank you for your continued support of the VTFSC and our member clubs; please consider a donation to help us help you defend our rights. 
Best Regards, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
http://www.vtfsc.com/ | 
