House Judiciary hearing previews Senate changes to firearm‑relinquishment procedures in H.606

The House Judiciary Committee on May 12 heard testimony on a Senate amendment to H.606 that restructures how courts and holders handle firearms surrendered under relief‑from‑abuse (RFA) and extreme‑risk protection orders (IRPO). Committee Chair opened the session and turned the discussion to Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council, who reviewed the amendment and the working‑group origin of the changes.

Fitzpatrick said the amendment consolidates two existing relinquishment procedures into a single statutory location under the Department of Public Safety (DPS), reflecting recommendations from the Firearm Surrender Order Compliance Working Group created by last year’s miscellaneous judiciary bill (Act 64). "It takes what's an existing statute in two different places, puts them together in one place, and makes the processes consistent," he said.

Under the amendment, courts would still be able to order firearms relinquished under RFAs or IRPOs, but a defendant may ask that a third party hold surrendered firearms only after a court hearing that finds third‑party storage adequately protects safety. The bill requires any proposed third party to agree to a background check and sign an affidavit assuming responsibility; Fitzpatrick noted that the third‑party option remains voluntary.

Committee members sought detail on timing and notification. Fitzpatrick walked members through the release and reclaim sequence: when a court orders firearms released the holder must make them available to the owner within 72 hours after the required background check; if the owner does not retrieve the firearms within 90 days after certified notice, the holder (an FFL or law enforcement agency) may sell the items and retain the proceeds. "Once the court orders release, the law enforcement agency or FFL that possesses it must make them available to the owner within 72 hours after the background check," Fitzpatrick said.

FFLs and law enforcement would be allowed to charge statutory storage fees (the amendment keeps the current schedule of $200 for the first firearm and $50 for each additional firearm up to specified limits) and — if they opt in to provide storage — federally licensed dealers would receive the same limited immunity from civil liability that law enforcement agencies currently enjoy, absent gross negligence, Fitzpatrick said.

Witnesses urged clarifications and raised operational concerns. Henry Pero, who identified himself as the owner of Pero's Fence Shop and Police Supplies, told the committee that federal background checks (NICS) may delay transfer‑back beyond the 72‑hour window and that FFLs need clear direction to avoid conflicts between federal transfer timing and the bill’s deadlines. "A lot of times people that have been subject to restraining orders… they get put on delay. And the delay status… can extend beyond that 72 hour period," he said.

Major David Peterson of the Vermont State Police, who served on the working group, said DPS supports a statewide model policy to standardize procedures and provide clarity for law enforcement and affected parties. He acknowledged resource differences across agencies and recommended exploring multiple notification pathways for victims rather than relying solely on law enforcement. "Standardization across all agencies is something that DPS supports," Peterson said.

Chris Bradley, a consultant for the working group representing the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, presented data from the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission and outlined operational realities in Vermont. Bradley said the state maintains a public list that showed eight designated storage locations; he reported that several are small operations with limited capacity, that one formerly willing store left after litigation, and that expanding FFL participation has been challenging. He also delivered a set of recommendations including earlier notice to defendants about storage options, court‑approved designation forms for third‑party storage, law‑enforcement‑conducted background checks at no cost to defendants, and broader immunity protections for third parties that store firearms by court order.

Committee members asked whether the amendment addresses situations in which a defendant is temporarily prohibited by an RFA but later becomes permanently prohibited by a criminal conviction, and how that should affect the disposition of stored firearms. Fitzpatrick said the scenario had not been fully resolved in the working‑group record and merits further clarification.

Several members also probed the amendment’s victim‑notification language. The bill uses a "reasonable efforts" standard for notifying victims before firearms are released; Fitzpatrick said the term is not defined in the text and likely would be interpreted by courts. Major Peterson observed that law enforcement is often the available backstop for notification but recommended exploring victim‑services or court pathways to assist, citing limited law‑enforcement resources.

The committee did not take a vote. Members indicated they would consider whether to request additional clarifying language before the bill returns from the senate and said they expected more testimony from other agencies and stakeholders.

The hearing’s next procedural step will be continuation of committee consideration and possible drafting of clarifying amendments should members decide to act after reviewing witness input and potential senate changes.