The Senate Judiciary Committee this week freed itself from a longer-than-anticipated struggle with a gun-related issue, settling on a new draft and passing that version on to the Finance Committee to consider.
The Senate Judiciary Committee over the past month has taken testimony on a gun storage section of the fee bill even though that legislation was not technically referred to that committee.
That’s because the fee bill contains a section about firearms storage policy. The provision was inserted in the broad fee bill to prevent other gun amendments from being tacked onto it.
The Judiciary Committee heard from gun rights advocates as well as anti-domestic violence groups, parties that last year agreed to compromise on the initiative but tangled in recent months over exact wording.
The bill aims to create safe storage facilities for the guns owned by people who have been ordered by the court not to possess firearms or weapons as a result of a relief from abuse order.
Both groups last week said they are pleased, for the most part, with the bill at this point, but still hope to make several adjustments when it goes to the Finance Committee.
The Judiciary Committee made one major change to the bill by adding an option for people to store their weapons with a third party.
The original version of the bill, and the version passed by the House, only allowed the guns to be stored with law enforcement or a federally licensed firearms dealer.
The Judiciary Committee adopted language that says a judge may order a person to relinquish their firearms, ammunition or other weapons to a third party, unless the judge finds that person will not adequately protect the victim.
Senators and advocates on both sides disagreed over whether a judge “may” or “shall” order the guns to go to a third party.
“We appreciate the direction of going with the ‘may’ versus the ‘shall’ … we were absolutely opposed to the shall,” said Sarah Kenney, associate director of public policy for the Network Against Domestic Violence.
Kenney earlier said requiring a judge to use a third party as the first option undermines her group’s goal in pushing for this legislation. The organization is trying to prevent guns from finding their way back into the hands of alleged domestic abusers, she said.
“We actually hope that judges will actually take the safer route by going to the safest place,” Kenney said.
The latest draft of the bill includes a requirement that if the guns are stored with a third party, that person must file an affidavit assuming responsibility for the firearms and acknowledging potential penalties for giving them back to the person who relinquished them.
Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the state branch of the National Rifle Association, said his group preferred the “shall” language.
Hughes said his group also wants to know what fees the Finance Committee will set for gun storage.
Hughes said his groups supported the dollar amounts in an earlier version of the bill, which were $4 per week per firearm plus a $25 administrative fee. The federation wants an annual cap on the fees of around $1,000, he said.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, said the Finance Committee should take testimony from law enforcement officials about what would be a reasonable fee. The bill says fees should only cover costs, not turn a profit.
Evans also said he is glad the bill includes an option for firearms owners to sell their weapons instead of turning them over for storage.
