Judiciary committee reviews S.109; members weigh firearm‑surrender working group, title‑record fixes

The House Judiciary Committee on April 2 heard testimony on S.109, a miscellaneous judiciary bill that includes a proposal to create a firearm‑surrender working group and several court‑process and record‑clearing provisions, including a new curative rule for older property instruments recorded without a power of attorney.

The working‑group proposal (section 25) drew the most discussion. Carol Hansen of the Attorney General’s Office stressed the group would not create new firearm restrictions but would study how existing state and federal surrender laws are carried out and identify barriers to enforcement. "The first and most important point that I wanted to make to you all today is this is not any sort of new restriction on firearms," Hansen said. Charlie Glesserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said advocates support a study to improve implementation of legal firearm‑surrender orders and asked the committee to consider keeping money that supports domestic‑violence services in the bill.

Proponents said the working group would assemble decision makers and technical partners — including law enforcement, courts, probation, and victim‑services representatives — to develop practical options. Hansen said the group would try to identify measures that use existing law and that may require follow‑up legislation, and that the Firearms Technical Assistance Program (FTAP) has been involved in framing the work. Committee members indicated they plan to take additional testimony from law enforcement and other named parties before finalizing the language.

Not all members were persuaded a working group is the right next step. One committee member who spoke against the idea said, "I don't like it 1 bit," arguing that improved enforcement of existing criminal laws, not more study, should be the focus. Committee staff and witnesses acknowledged the group would not produce a perfect enforcement mechanism, but said it could reduce gaps where surrender orders fall through — for example, by clarifying how courts, probation and police verify that a prohibited person has in fact turned over or secured a firearm.

The bill also drew testimony on a number of court‑process provisions. Liz Smith, counsel and state manager for Caddock in Vermont, explained a proposed addition to validate certain deeds when the conveyance instrument has been of record for 15 years but the authorizing power‑of‑attorney is not of record. Smith said the change is curative and modeled on statutes in Maine and Connecticut; she told the committee that "So but again, after 15 years, this would, you know, make that a nonissue." The witnesses and committee members described the change as intended to reduce title‑search disputes caused by administrative or scrivener errors in older records. Smith and other witnesses referenced Title 12, including 12 VSA §501 and §502, which set a 15‑year limitations framework in the state's title statutes.

Other sections described by Chief Superior Judge Tom Zona (judicial administration testimony) would: remove a specific numeric cap on superior judges so the number can be set by the General Assembly (the committee was told there are currently "40 superior judges. 5 magistrates"); add procurement‑of‑tobacco cases to the Judicial Bureau; clarify masking provisions for CDL‑related convictions to match federal rules; and adjust record‑access rules so licensed attorneys can search nonconfidential criminal, family and probate electronic case records through the judiciary portal rather than needing to use a separate public portal or request copies from the court. On access, a committee member said logging in through the attorney portal should allow the broader searches; the chief judge said he would confirm the technical mechanics.

Judge Zona also described changes aligning attorney‑fee procedures with Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 80.1 so that the court need not hold a hearing in every fee matter unless an objection is filed; witnesses described the change as intended to reduce unnecessary hearings. The bill would also allow guardianship petitions that are filed and then withdrawn to be sealed rather than remain public records.

Section 8 and 9 address a weapons provision: the bill would eliminate switchblades from a statutory prohibition and then provide for sealing or expunging related convictions. Judge Zona told the committee staff had identified about a dozen old cases (most more than 10 years old) and that the court can arrange the record relief after the law takes effect.

Judge Zona described section 22 language related to the Coordinated Justice Reform Advisory Council and said the council had recommended folding some formerly one‑time funding into base budgets; he said the committee’s report indicated about $490,000 would move to base funding, with roughly $390,000 proposed for Lund and $100,000 for BACT, a Burlington forensic/community reentry program run between the Department of Corrections and Department of Mental Health.

No formal votes were taken at the hearing. Committee members said they will take additional testimony — including from law enforcement — and may circulate amended language for the firearm‑surrender working group and the domestic‑violence fund proposal before holding a formal committee decision.

Ending: The committee scheduled follow‑up testimony and promised further written language and stakeholder outreach before final action on S.109.