Vermont Legislature Considering Red Flag, Gun Storage Law

Dick Heller, plaintiff in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, gestures while holding his newly approved gun permit at the District of Columbia Police Department, Aug. 18, 2008, in Washington. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill meant to reduce suicides by instituting gun storage laws, setting a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases, and expanding the state’s extreme risk protection order statute.

“The purpose of this legislation is to prevent death by suicide by reducing access to lethal means of firearms,” the bill, H.230, reads.

Chris Bradley is secretary and treasurer of the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association and president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. He told The Epoch Times that he appreciates the bill’s intent but questions its method.

“[Suicide] is something that absolutely needs focus,” Bradley said. “This may have good intentions, but it is misguided.”

Democratic state Rep. Alyssa Black, the bill’s principal sponsor, didn’t return a call or email requesting comment.

Dustin Culbreth, vice president for product development of Vaultek, demonstrates the features of one of his company's long gun safes during the National Shooting Sports Foundation's 45th annual SHOT Show in Las Vegas on Jan. 18, 2023.  (Michael Clements/The Epoch Times)

The state Senate Judiciary Committee heard from Bradley, attorney Eric Fitzpatrick from the Office of Legislative Counsel, and Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark on April 6.

Fitzpatrick told the committee that some witnesses will say the bill is unconstitutional, and some will say it passes constitutional muster. Fitzpatrick said there is only one guarantee.

“Some of the witnesses will end up being proven correct,” he said.

According to Fitzpatrick, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions are still so new that it’s unclear exactly how they will apply to this law.

The 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a Washington law requiring guns to be unloaded and locked away.

States that have Red Flag Laws or Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws.

H.230 would require all firearms to be stored separately from ammunition in a locked container or with a lock or other device that renders the firearm inoperable. It provides an exception if an authorized firearm user is carrying it or has it in “close proximity.”

It also provides exceptions if an unauthorized person uses an unsecured firearm in an otherwise legal self-defense situation.

Clark told the committee that the self-defense exception brings the law into compliance with Heller. Bradley disagreed.

He said the Heller decision clearly states that a firearm that is locked away isn’t ready to be used for self-defense and, therefore, the requirement infringes on Second Amendment rights.

Trying to Change the Culture

Committee member and Democratic state Sen. Philip Baruth told Bradley there is language in Heller to preserve gun storage laws. He said the measure is meant to “change the culture” for gun owners.

“We’re trying to push people as hard as we can to lock up their guns,” Baruth said. “I don’t read Heller as preventing that.”

Bradley also took issue with the proposed 72-hour waiting period. He said there is no evidence this would prevent anyone from committing suicide. But it could leave the target of a stalker vulnerable for three days.

“It is unconstitutional to tell your sister who is being threatened by a stalker, ‘No, you have to wait 72 hours,’” Bradley told The Epoch Times.

In written testimony, supporters of the law said the waiting period would provide suicidal people time to reconsider their plans. Democratic state Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, who is a social worker, said 72 hours is the standard cooling time most mental health professionals set for people in crisis.

Efficacy of Waiting Periods Questioned

Bradley said that he has heard of only two cases in which people bought a gun specifically to kill themselves. In most cases, they use a gun they already own.

“What purpose does this serve for someone who already owns a gun?”

But Bradley said his most significant concern was the provision for extreme risk protection orders, the so-called red flag laws.

Bradley said there was already a law on the books that his organizations had accepted.

“We all can agree that, at the end of the day, there are people that should just not have guns,” Bradley said.

Under the current law, requests for extreme risk protection orders are taken before a judge by a state’s attorney or attorney general. The judge could issue an order if it’s determined that there is “clear and convincing” evidence.

‘Red Flag’ Law Expanded

The law requires the person subject to the order to be notified under due process.

H.230 would allow a family or household member to petition the court for a 14-day emergency order. The court could issue the order after a “preponderance of the evidence.” The respondent wouldn’t have to be notified before his or her firearms were confiscated.

Bradley said this would open the door to abuse by people carrying a grudge or just wanting to cause trouble.

“Right now, we have some form of legal vetting. If we expand this, some cases will go to court with no legal vetting,” Bradley said.

Democratic state Sen. Dick Sears Jr., committee chairman, had questions, too. He said he supported the concept of a red flag law, but he wanted to ensure due process protections weren’t diluted.

He presented an example of a teenager angry about being grounded from using a cellphone.

“At 10 o’clock at night, who decides the veracity of the charges?” Sears asked.

Fitzpatrick said the law calls for the temporary order to end after 14 days. During that time, the state’s attorney or attorney general would take over the case and determine whether a final order is called for.

“I’m concerned about somebody getting back at somebody,” Sears said.