Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary Committee reviews H.606 amendment adding petition process to restore firearms rights
Summary
The committee considered amendment 3.1 to H.606, which adds a family-division petition-for-relief process allowing certain people previously disqualified on mental‑health grounds to seek restoration of firearm rights; the solicitor general told members the proposal likely would survive constitutional review under recent Supreme Court precedents, and a motion to approve the amendment was made and seconded but no final roll-call vote appears in the transcript.
The House Judiciary Committee met March 13 to consider amendment draft 3.1 to H.606, which adds language clarifying that people who have been prohibited from possessing firearms because of certain mental‑health commitment orders may petition the family division for restoration of their firearms rights.
Eric Fpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council told the committee the new text is narrow and largely codifies an existing Vermont petition-for-relief process. “This was passed concurrently … back in 2015,” he said, describing the earlier statute that established a mechanism for people to ask a court to find they are no longer a risk and have their rights restored. Fpatrick explained the bill distinguishes subgroups of prohibited people: some would be barred permanently (where other convictions apply) while others would be disqualified only while a commitment order is in effect.
John Rose, the solicitor general at the attorney general’s office, briefed members on Second Amendment jurisprudence and how H.606 would fare under recent Supreme Court tests. Rose outlined the two‑part Bruen framework and said the court’s recent decision in US v. Rahheem supports temporary disarmament where there is a judicial finding of dangerousness. “The most significant out of the cases that’s come out so far is the Bruen test,” he told the committee, and added that, read together with Rahheem, statutes tying disqualification to court orders or findings of dangerousness present strong arguments for constitutionality.
Members pressed Rose on whether the bill’s language requires a separate court order to restore rights once a commitment lapses; panelists agreed that in many cases the prohibition simply ends when the underlying order expires, but the petition remains an available route in other circumstances. The committee also discussed how the state provisions interact with federal law; members and counsel referenced 13 V.S.A. §4825 and 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4), noting people covered by the proposed Vermont language would already meet federal prohibitions and therefore be eligible for the established petition process.
Rose said the office is likewise confident it could defend a separate machine‑gun prohibition contained in the bill, citing longstanding Supreme Court language treating machine guns as “dangerous and unusual.” Counsel and the solicitor general acknowledged the difference between facial constitutional review (the statute as written) and potential as‑applied challenges brought by individuals who might argue a specific restriction is unfair based on narrowly factual circumstances.
A committee member moved to approve amendment draft 3.1 to H.606; the motion was seconded and the chair announced a straw poll would be taken. The transcript ends before a recorded final roll‑call vote or the poll result was given.
