Gun rights advocates Wednesday told senators they no longer support legislation to create safe storage facilities for firearms relinquished by people subject to relief from abuse orders.
In response to pressure from gun groups the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to revamp that legislation to reach a compromise between gun owners and advocates for victims of domestic violence. The advocates want to keep guns away from people who have been issued relief from abuse orders from the courts.
Senators on Wednesday heard testimony from law enforcement officials, an advocate for victims of domestic violence and gun owners. The Judiciary Committee said it plans to rewrite legislation the House passed last month, and may even start from scratch.
“Obviously, we’re not going to pass what the House passed. It sounds like what passed the House left a lot of people scratching their heads,” Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, committee chairman, said after the hearing.
Sears said he was surprised to learn how expensive the proposed $4 per week per gun fee could get. He said there also needs to be a decision on what to do during temporary restraining orders. Some legislators and witnesses said it is unfair to seize property from someone who has not been charged with a crime.
The firearm storage provision is one section in a broad fee bill before the Senate Finance Committee. The Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony on this section and will recommend changes to the Finance Committee. Sen. Tim Ashe, D-Chittenden, is Finance Committee chair and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
In general, policy is not included in the fee bill, but an exception was made in this case. The administration made sure the firearms storage issue was included in the fee bill to avoid the tacking-on of gun-related amendments.
The $4 per week fee would be paid to law enforcement agencies that store the weapons.
Compromise dissolves
The measure was initially a compromise between gun rights groups and anti-domestic violence advocates, brokered by the administration. Gov. Peter Shumlin praised the measure in October at a news conference.
The governor’s office Wednesday introduced an amendment to the bill that specifies the $4 fee is per firearm but caps the total at $2,000 for a 365-day period.
Some gun owners told the committee they initially supported the concept but do not support the current version of the bill. Other gun ownership groups said they don’t support the measure at all.
The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the state branch of the National Rifle Association, was one of the original supporters of safe storage.
Evan Hughes, legislative liaison for the group, said Wednesday the current draft made some parts of the process overly complex and others too simple.
“The whole goal was to not make new law, it was to come up with a more viable enforcement of existing law,” Hughes said.
He said the administration’s amendment has solved some of his concerns but not all.
The genesis of the bill was that law enforcement officials did not have adequate facilities to safely store firearms surrendered by people who are ordered not to possess guns as part of relief from abuse orders.
Because courts know there is no good place to store the guns, judges allow the person to keep them, according to law enforcement and anti-domestic violence advocates.
The most dangerous time
The fear is that people who are potentially dangerous could harm someone while under a relief from abuse order.
Experts in domestic violence say the most dangerous time for a victim is directly after he or she has gone to police or the court to report violence and obtain a relief from abuse order.
Domestic violence presents a “lethal threat” to communities, said Sarah Kenney, public policy coordinator for the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.
Her group has made this measure a priority this legislative session.
Half of all homicides in Vermont between 1994 and 2012 were related to domestic violence, Kenney said. Of those, 56 percent were committed with firearms; 80 percent of Vermont murder-suicides related to domestic violence are committed with firearms, she said.
“We know that firearms and domestic violence are a truly lethal combination,” she said.
If a person doesn’t accumulate criminal charges as a result of a relief from abuse order, he or she will likely recoup their guns, Kenney said.
“Legally, courts can do this, practically, it’s not happening,” she said.
If law enforcement authorities or federal firearms dealers have money to safely store guns, advocates say, judges can order guns be relinquished to either one of those parties.
Gun owners want more options
Gun owners object to the bill because they say storing the firearms with a friend or family member should also be an option, perhaps even the first option.
They also say the fee is too high, especially if someone has many guns.
Bill Moore, of the Vermont Traditions Coalition, said the fee oversteps protections for firearms ownership in Vermont. His group isn’t interested in compromising.
At a minimum, he said, the bill should allow people accused of abuse to store firearms with a relative.
Attorney Cindy Hill, a gun rights advocate, argued guns should not be seized when they are not evidence or part of a crime and when no one has been charged with a crime.
Ed Cutler, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, worried about antique guns and firearms used for sport. Cutler also said the bill would require some people to give up their guns altogether because they might be worth less than what they would pay for storage.
“We are having a solution for a problem that really doesn’t exist,” Cutler said.
Temporary abuse orders
Another topic senators and witnesses debated Wednesday during the three-and-a-half-hour hearing was whether judges have the authority to order people not to possess firearms during temporary relief from abuse orders.
Those orders are for up to 10 days and prior to a hearing.
Federal law is also in play on this topic. It prohibits people subject to full relief from abuse orders not to possess firearms but not in instances of temporary abuse orders.
There is also a 2001 Vermont Supreme Court case (Benson v. Muscari) that ruled on this subject, but it also pertains only to full orders.
Department of Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn argued judges can order firearms relinquished because state law on temporary orders says a judge can order a person to “refrain from abusing the plaintiff.”
Flynn also said nothing in the bill prohibits a friend or relative to take a person’s firearms.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, said there are many reasons why a final hearing on a relief from abuse order doesn’t take place within the prescribed time limit.
“I’m having real bad feelings with having the state stepping in as the first place the firearm would go because of the fact that not only is the defendant who hasn’t had opportunity to present a case yet but is now being charged with a fee to have their property stored and then subsequent returned only if they can get into court within a 90-day window,” Benning said.
Benning asked for statistics that show a person in Vermont was killed or injured by a weapon during a temporary order. Kenney said she would review data and get back to him.
“The most crucial time is during the temporary order,” said Springfield Police Chief Douglas Johnston, president of the Police Chiefs Association.
Johnston was one of two law enforcement officers who testified Wednesday. Benning asked both how many guns were in their lockers for this purpose.
Orange County Sheriff Bill Bohnyak said his department sees perhaps 10 or 12 cases a year where firearms are asked to be turned over but there are no guns in the evidence locker now.
Johnston said doesn’t know how many guns are in his locker, but some were there before he joined the department 35 years ago.
Correction: April 2, 10:49 p.m. A statistic on domestic violence and murder-suicides was corrected.
