Notes from the Senate – Firearms

This week the Judiciary Committee on which I serve passed out a couple bills but one was major, had a lot of emotion and controversy and misinformation, took a lot of time and in the end I believe we had a good bill. At the beginning of the session, S.31 was introduced. Rather than amend and pass it, the decision of Chair Sears was to create a committee bill that contained essential parts of the bill. There are three main components.

Currently there are certain people who cannot possess a firearm under federal law. If someone is arrested in violation of that law, only the federal prosecutors can prosecute. If a state has a similar ban, then the state prosecutors can handle those cases. Vermont is the only state that has not enacted such a law. We viewed this as a weakness and we heard from law enforcement that this hampered them in many ways, most noticeably in drug trafficking cases. So one of our provisions was to enact a parallel law. However ours is not as broad as the federal law. Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a felony with a one year maximum penalty from possessing a firearm. We felt that pulled too many people into the net and in most cases where there was no nexus between the crime and firearms. So ours is limited to those who have been convicted of drug trafficking (except marijuana) where there is a sentence of 10 years, and what are called “listed crimes”. Those are the crimes we consider really bad: murder, sexual assault of a child, etc. There are some crimes that are in this awful category but since there seemed to be no nexus to firearms they have been eliminated from the list – motor accident with death resulting, etc. So now our state’s attorneys will be able to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have been convicted of the worst crimes and/or drug trafficking.

The second part of the bill would prohibit certain people with mental illness from owning firearms by allowing their names to be submitted to the feds. Once again the federal law encompasses too many people. This bill would cover only those who have been adjudicated (requires two psychiatrists’ opinion and a judge’s determination in a court hearing) to be of danger to themselves or others. One important part of this section is that people recover and what will happen then? The federal government has acknowledged this as an issue and encourages states to set up a system of relief – in fact they have grants available to help set up such a system in the state. Our bill would allow a person who is no longer under the court order to seek relief after a three year period of time. If found to not present a danger to the public, the person’s right to own firearms would be restored. Some felt there should be no waiting period, some wanted it much longer – three years is what the bill now says.

The third section of the bill instructs the Department of Mental Health to look a New Hampshire program called Gun Shop which offers help to those who are experiencing mental health issues before they purchase firearms. These are people that may be in crisis but have not reached the level of those in the above paragraph. Advocates on both sides of this issue supported this concept.

While this is an emotional issue, everyone worked together to help keep guns out of those who have committed the worst crimes, or are in such a mental health crisis that they are a judged a danger to themselves or others while acknowledging the constitutional right to possess firearms.

The second part of the bill would prohibit certain people with mental illness from owing firearms by allowing their names to be submitted to the feds. Once again the federal law encompasses too many people. This bill would cover those who have been adjudicated (required two psychiatrists opinion and a judges determination in a court hearing) to be of danger to themselves or others. One fear of this section is that people recover and what will happen then. The federal government has acknowledged this and encouraged states to set up a system of relief – in fact they have grants available to help set up that system in the state. Our bill would allow a person who is no longer under that court order to seek relief after a three year period of time. If found to not present a danger to the public, the person’s right to own firearms would be restored. Some felt there should be no waiting period, some wanted it much longer. Three years is what the bill now says.

The third section of the bill instructs the Department of Mental Health to look a New Hampshire program called Gun Shop which offers help to those who are experiencing mental health issues before they purchase firearms. These are people that may be in crisis but have not reached the level of those in the above paragraph. Advocates on both sides of this issue supported this concept. The other two were not universally approved but seemed to the needs of most.

While this is an emotional issue, everyone worked together to help keep guns out of those who have committed the worst crimes, or are in such a mental health crisis that they are a judged a danger to themselves or others.