More than 700 Vermont residents died of gunshot wounds in the decade between 2011 and 2020. 88 percent of those gun deaths were suicides. Of all firearm-related deaths in Vermont in 2021, 89 percent were suicides and eight percent were homicides. The 2021 suicide rate by all methods in Vermont was 20.3 per 100,000 people, compared to a national rate of 14.0 per 100,000 people. Suicide among Vermont men and boys is 50 percent higher than the national average. In 2021, there were 142 suicides in Vermont, and 83 of those (58%) were completed by firearm. Rand Corporation research estimates that in 2016, firearms were present in 47 percent of Vermont homes and in 32 percent of homes in the United States. Children are 4.4 times more likely to die by suicide in a home with a firearm compared to a home without a firearm.

These were some of the troubling findings that the House Committee on Health Care included in H.230, a bill that would implement measures to reduce suicide. That committee advanced three policies to meet that goal.

First, the bill would create a secure-storage requirement. It would require a person to securely store firearms in circumstances where a child or person prohibited from possessing a firearm is likely to gain access to them. If a child or prohibited person accesses an improperly secured firearm and commits a crime or causes harm with it, the owner of the firearm would face potential imprisonment or fine or both. To avoid impinging on a person’s right to self-defense, the provision would not apply if a firearm is carried by the owner or another authorized user or within such close proximity that it can be readily retrieved and used by the owner or authorized user.

Second, the bill would improve access to Vermont’s red-flag law, which allows a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). This is a civil order that temporarily prohibits individuals who pose a danger of injury to self (including suicide) or others from purchasing, possessing, or receiving any dangerous weapons, including firearms. Under current law, only a State’s Attorney or the Office of the Attorney General may file an ERPO petition. H.230 would allow a family or household member to initiate the process for obtaining an ERPO by directly petitioning the court for an emergency order.

If a court issues the emergency order, it must hold a hearing within 14 days to provide the person against whom the order was issued an opportunity to be heard. At that point, the State’s Attorney or Attorney General would take over the case from the family or household member and become the party to the action. H.230 would make the process for obtaining an ERPO more accessible to those who are in the best position – family or household members – to know if someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Third, the bill adds a waiting period.  A person would not be allowed to transfer a firearm to a purchaser until 72 hours after the purchaser passes a background check or after 7 days without any result from the background check, whichever occurs first.

After the bill was passed out of the Health Care Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, which I chair, took testimony and worked on H.230. Although we considered other issues related to the bill, we focused on the constitutionality of the provisions, in particular whether they would run afoul of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In the Judiciary Committee, we heard from witnesses who testified that they believe the provisions in H.230 are constitutional and from others who believe that they are unconstitutional. Ultimately, as our legislative counsel testified, courts will have the final say. At this time, it is not clear how the courts binding on Vermont will rule on such firearms regulations. And it may not be clear for a while.

The Vermont Attorney General testified that she acknowledged that there were concerns about the constitutionality of any gun legislation in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. But the Attorney General concluded that her office thinks H.230 is constitutional and urged the legislature to pass the bill.

I have no reason to disagree with the Attorney General. Indeed, we heard strong testimony that the provisions in H.230 for safe storage, improving accessibility to our red flag law, and implementing a waiting period are constitutional. As I fully explain in a post at martinlalondevt.com, I believe that the courts will find such provisions to be constitutional. In the interim, implementing these measures will save lives.