Legislation would create working group to standardize firearm-surrender process; stakeholders press to add FFLs

The Vermont Judiciary Committee on April 10 heard testimony supporting Section 25 of draft S.109, which would create a working group to recommend a uniform process for executing court-ordered firearm surrenders.

Committee Chair opened the discussion of Section 25 and invited testimony. Charlie Glisserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, told the committee the network is “generally supportive of the revised working group language.” He said the group should “recommend a uniform process for executing existing laws on firearm surrender orders” and endorsed adding a federal firearms licensee (FFL) to the working group for technical expertise.

The case for including FFLs was pressed by Chris Bradley, president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. “We support s 1 0 9,” Bradley said. He told the committee that the problem is not only ensuring firearms are taken when ordered but also fixing the “back end” — how seized firearms are stored, tracked and returned. He described a case involving Green Mountain Sporting Goods, where 19 firearms were taken from an accused and transported in a patrol car to an FFL; the FFL later sold one firearm, triggering a consumer-protection lawsuit that left the FFL and the state defending actions taken under existing law. Bradley said that experience shows FFLs need indemnification and clearer procedures before more dealers will accept surrendered weapons.

Todd Dalles of the Attorney General’s Office said the Fatality Review Commission recommended a technical working group and urged the committee to include participants who can address both front-end relinquishment and back-end storage, liability and return. “This is really, our goal was to have a very technical working group that was gonna look at each step along the way of these relinquishment orders,” Dalles said. He proposed members including a superior court judge, the defender general, state’s attorneys, the Vermont State Police or local law enforcement, the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services (in a consultative role), and an FFL with direct technical knowledge.

Committee members asked practical questions about how to identify FFLs and whether to make them voting working-group members or consultative witnesses. Bradley said the federation has compiled a list of about 10 storefront FFLs in Vermont and offered the federation’s help in identifying licensees; he also urged that the federation itself be named to the working group for its expertise. Several lawmakers said they would prefer naming an organization with a designee or permitting the federation to recommend an FFL while keeping other licensees available for wider consultation.

Witnesses and members repeatedly emphasized two goals: (1) ensure courts and law enforcement can obtain firearms reliably under relinquishment orders, and (2) ensure a predictable, secure and legally defensible process for storing and returning property so lawful owners are not improperly deprived and storage providers are not exposed to enforcement risk. Dalles underscored that FFLs are not the only storage option and suggested the working group examine alternative avenues in addition to FFL participation.

The discussion produced several specific drafting suggestions: add clearer language about the working group’s charge to address both front-end execution and the back-end storing/return process; specify that support entities “charged with storing surrendered firearms pursuant to court orders” be included; and, where appointing authority is unclear, allow entities to designate designees. Committee members said they will refine appointments language so the working group includes victims’ advocates, court representatives and one or more technical FFL participants either as members or named consultants.

With witnesses’ offers to convene additional FFLs and to help draft implementation steps, committee members signaled support to adjust Section 25’s membership language before the bill moves forward. The committee then moved on to other agenda items.

Ending: The record shows broad stakeholder support for creating a technical working group under Section 25 of draft S.109 and repeated calls from witnesses that at least one FFL — or a federation-appointed designee plus wider FFL consultation — be part of the group to address storage, liability and return procedures.