Assistant Attorney General: Vermont lacks a system to ensure court-ordered firearm surrenders

Assistant Attorney General Carolyn Hansen told the House Judiciary Committee that Vermont often issues court orders requiring people to relinquish firearms but has no consistent system to ensure those orders are carried out.

"When a person is first told that they have to relinquish their firearm ... that's a lethality factor right there," Hansen said, urging lawmakers to recognize the period immediately after service as one of the most dangerous for petitioners and to build processes that make sure firearms are actually removed.

Hansen described a stakeholder workgroup that drafted the bill and a two-page informational document that would be attached to relief-from-abuse orders to explain options to respondents, including the possibility of a court-approved third party holding the firearms or temporary storage with a federal firearms licensee (FFL). She said the affidavit form and brochure have been posted on the court's website but are seldom used in practice.

The bill, as Hansen framed it, does not create new prohibitions but seeks to "spell out the process" that many members said was intended when Vermont first allowed third-party holding in 2013. Under the proposed procedure, temporary orders that mandate surrender would allow law enforcement to collect firearms immediately; the court would later evaluate whether a proposed third party (for example, a family member) is legally eligible and willing to assume custody under a signed affidavit.

Committee members pressed Hansen on practical logistics: how officers verify that a respondent actually surrendered every firearm at the time of service, how agencies without storage can rely on FFLs, and whether family transfers should require background checks. Hansen said that when a respondent has been found by the court to pose a danger, a background/NICS-style check would be part of the court's evaluation before approving a third party.

The committee also discussed potential consequences if a third party returns guns to a respondent. Hansen said the court could hold a third party in civil contempt under existing law and noted that federal statutes can apply to transfers to a prohibited person. The bill does not itself create criminal penalties for third parties; rather, it requires an affidavit and a court process to minimize the risk that a prohibited person regains gun access.

Members debated immunity and civil responsibility for third parties and raised the possibility of insurance or contractual protections between private parties who accept custody. Hansen said the bill focuses on the court's approval process and that civil remedies between private parties would remain available for losses or theft.

Lawmakers repeatedly returned to training and a statewide model policy: the bill would require departments to adopt guidance and training for officers on how to approach relinquishment at the scene in a nonconfrontational way, to make "reasonable efforts" to collect firearms when an order is served, and to document custody and chain-of-possession. Hansen acknowledged there will be situations where officers cannot seize firearms immediately (for example, when the respondent is not present where the guns are stored), but she said the statute's goal is to increase compliance and reduce lethality.

No formal vote on H606 occurred during the session; the committee scheduled additional testimony and planned to continue discussion the following Friday.

The committee adjourned with the chair noting other scheduled business (SS 193 and a miscellaneous bill) and that members would reconvene for further testimony and committee discussion.