The Senate on Thursday gave preliminary approval to a measure designed to keep weapons away from people subject to relief from abuse orders.
The measure was a much-debated compromise. It is part of a larger fee bill that passed the Senate, 23-6-1, with little debate.
The measure sets up a system for storing guns and other weapons belonging to people ordered not to possess them as part of a relief from abuse order.
A person can store the guns with a third party, such as a friend or relative, with a firearms dealer or with law enforcement, who can charge a fee for holding them.
The Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence pushed for the measure, saying courts often do not order people not to possess firearms because they know police lack adequate storage space.
The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the state branch of the National Rifle Association, agreed from the beginning to support the measure.
The parties disagreed on several details in the bill but said they support the final version.
The Senate Judiciary Committee took most of the testimony on the bill in the Senate, including from other gun rights groups that opposed it.
“Like with all compromises, it’s a balance,” said Sen. Dick Sears, chairman of the committee.
Sen. Tim Ashe, D-Chittenden, is chairman of the Finance Committee, which ultimately approved the fee bill. He is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.
“We’ve made it so law enforcement can be good stewards of people’s firearms while they need to be held,” Ashe said.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, vice-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, voted against the fee bill. Lawmakers failed to study the issue closely enough before legislating, he said.
“The rights of citizens could be impinged upon by going far beyond what is necessary to address the problem,” Benning said.
There are several major differences between the House and Senate version of the gun storage section of the fee bill. It is up to the House to accept the changes or hash them out in a conference committee.
One difference is the amount of the fees.
The Senate version includes a $200 fee for the first firearm or weapon and $50 for each additional firearm or weapon held for up to 15 months, prorated for the number of months the items are stored.
In addition, there will be a $50 fee per firearm or weapon per year or part thereof.
The House version had a $4 per week or part thereof plus a one-time $25 administrative fee. It did not include a cap on the fees or specific whether the $4 was per firearm.
“We’re gratified that a strong majority of senators demonstrated support for this common-sense approach to protecting domestic violence survivors and removing firearms from the hands of abusers,” said Sarah Kenney, associate director of public policy for the Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, in an email Thursday.
According to a 2007 study by the Vermont Center for Justice Research, 80 percent of law enforcement identified lack of space as a problem for storing firearms, Kenney said.
Evan Hughes, vice president of the Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, also said he is satisfied with the current version.
“We would like to see a cap on (the fees) but at this point, everybody’s going to have some little thing with it,” Hughes said.
Another difference is that the Senate version allows gun owners to store their weapons with a third party. The House version did not.
The option to store weapons with a third party is critical, Hughes said. That is not a provision that should come out in a conference committee, if the bill goes to one, he said.
“That makes the bill more palatable to our people and it obviously doesn’t hurt anything,” Hughes said.
