Lawmakers Hear Testimony on H 606; Supporters Back Court‑based Ban, Opponents Urge Delay

The House Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony on March 12 on House Bill 606 (draft 2.1), a measure that would prohibit firearm possession for people whom a court finds to be dangerous to themselves or others and would add a state machine‑gun definition aligned with federal law.

Chair Loland opened the session by summarizing amendments that revised the firearm definition and added penalties intended to mirror federal machine‑gun law. Eric Davis, president of the Gun Owners of Vermont, testified early and told the committee his organization “opposes this bill in its entirety,” citing both the content and the speed with which the measure is being advanced. Davis said he favored provisions that target individuals and behavior rather than broad bans on equipment, but he urged the committee to slow the process, split the bill into separate measures and build clearer, affordable paths to restore firearms rights for people with past convictions.

Suzanne Lurri, who identified herself as a gun‑violence survivor and volunteer with Every Town’s Survivor Connect program, urged support for H 606. “House Bill 606 would help keep guns out of the hands of people who have been found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others because of a mental health condition,” she said, recounting that the firearm used in her family’s homicide was later stolen from evidence and used again. Lurri also said the bill addresses suicide risk: “85% of gun deaths in Vermont are by gun suicide,” she testified.

Elizabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Every Town for Gun Safety, told the committee the bill’s dangerousness standard is key, not a diagnosis or voluntary treatment. Ryan said the measure would close a federal gap by covering some court orders (including certain outpatient orders) that do not automatically trigger the federal prohibition. She also supported the bill’s machine‑gun definition that mirrors federal language, saying Vermont is one of the few states that lacks a specific state prohibition on machine guns and that new rapid‑fire conversion devices have increased risk.

Committee members pressed witnesses on legal and practical details. Members sought clarification on how state and federal law interact when someone has prior convictions, whether short involuntary evaluations would strip rights, and what processes should exist for petitioning to restore rights. Ryan and others supported judicial petition routes for restoration; Davis urged creating a more accessible restoration path before expanding prohibitions. Witnesses and members also discussed ATF rules and recent case law about devices that convert semi‑automatic firearms to fully automatic fire.

No motions or votes were taken. The committee stood down for a pause in testimony and said it would resume when additional witnesses could join. Chair Loland and several members signaled an interest in more time to refine the bill’s language, and some members suggested consideration of restorative‑justice or rights‑restoration provisions in future drafting.

The committee is expected to resume testimony at a later date; members did not record a committee vote during the March 12 proceeding.