Changes to a gun storage measure undermine the goal of the legislation, anti-domestic violence advocates said Thursday.
The Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, as well as the gun rights group that compromised with them on the bill, both said they object to sections of the latest version, which the Senate Judiciary Committee discussed Thursday morning.
So senators, who had hoped to make quick work of the firearms storage measure, have gone back to the drawing board with their attorneys. The measure, which is contained in a broader fee bill, has become more complicated than they anticipated.
“How the hell did the thing pass the House? That’s my question. Seriously,” Judiciary Chairman Sen. Dick Sears exclaimed Thursday during testimony about the latest draft.
What started as a united push by anti-domestic violence advocates, gun rights groups, lawmakers and Gov. Peter Shumlin to store firearms taken from people under relief from abuse orders has turned into a policy debate over constitutional rights. And it’s happening in a committee that’s not even charged with voting on the bill.
The firearms storage measure is a section of H.735, a broad bill about fees before the Senate Finance Committee.
The Finance Committee deferred to the Judiciary Committee on this section, as it relates to criminal justice.
The latest version contains two sets of changes, some from the Shumlin administration and others from Sens. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, and Sears.
The Senate feels compelled to modify the House version because it believes it is inadequate. If it strikes the firearms storage measure entirely, a conference committee will be left with the House version, Sears said.
Sears started the hearing Thursday by quietly playing the Johnny Cash song “Don’t Take Your Guns to Town.” Several senators sang along.
The gun storage proposal concerns weapons in possession of someone subject to a relief from abuse order. The bill creates a fee charged to those people to help law enforcement or gun dealers afford to store the weapons while the person is not allowed to possess them.
But discussion of the measure, which ramped up after the bill crossed from the House to the Senate, has generated heat from gun owners who say it infringes on their right to possess firearms.
Some gun groups oppose it altogether, but the Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the local NRA, from the onset agreed to compromise. It is the top legislative priority this year for the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.
The group says the state needs a better way to ensure guns don’t make it back into the hands of potential batterers. Judges often don’t order law enforcement to hold guns during relief from abuse orders because they know police don’t have a place to keep them, the Network and police have said.
Anti-domestic violence advocates’ main objection to the newest version is about whether a person subject to a relief from abuse order should be allowed to store his or her firearms with a third party, such as a friend or family member.
The latest draft says a court shall order a person relinquish firearms, ammunition or other weapons to a person other than a law enforcement agency or firearms dealer if the court believes the other person will adequately protect the victim’s safety.
The anti-domestic violence group said the goal of the bill was to avoid precisely that scenario. They believe storage with friends or family is dangerous because an alleged abuser could easily retrieve the weapons.
“Instead of a de facto preference for a third party it’ll create a statutory preference for a third party, which is what we’re trying to get away from,” said Sarah Kenney of the advocates’ group.
The bill says the third party must sign an affidavit acknowledging receipt of the weapons and assuming responsibility for their storage.
“I think it needs to be left to the court’s discretion to determine what’s the safest route,” Kenney said.
Benning responded, saying if the court finds a responsible third party, it should not order someone to give up his or her property and charge a fee.
Meanwhile, the Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs is worried about the amount of the fees.
The bill came to the Judiciary Committee rather unexpectedly, and members Thursday said they did not take enough testimony to know what an appropriate fee would be, based on the value of weapons or storage costs. They are concerned about fees being more than a gun is worth.
As such, the Judiciary Committee in the new draft took out the dollar amounts inserted by the House and left Xs, leaving it up to the Finance Committee.
Evan Hughes, the federation’s legislative liaison, said he agrees with an earlier proposal of $4 per gun per week, plus a one-time $25 administrative fee. He said there should also be an annual cap of around $1,000 for a 365-day period, not $2,000 as proposed last week.
“Both sides got like 75 percent of what they wanted and nobody got 100 percent, “ Hughes said. “I told you, we’re going to get this through.”
Another issue was whether a person should be charged a fee for storage of firearms while he or she is subject to a temporary, 10-day relief from abuse order, which is executed when that person is not present to argue his or her case.
The new Senate version says people don’t have to pay a fee during a temporary order.
Another issue is over how to provide notice to people whose firearms might be sold if the owner fails to retrieve it.
There have also been questions about how necessary this measure is in the first place. The Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence says it is vital.
The Springfield police chief and Orange County Sheriff told the Judiciary Committee they have adequate space to store firearms. Burlington Police Chief Mike Schirling said his storage room is full but can always accept guns of alleged domestic abusers.
There are also several other changes in the latest version. In the title, the word “surrendered” was changed to “relinquished.” Attorneys said that change is meaningless but satisfies some gun rights groups.
