A Judiciary committee discussion Feb. 26 examined a bill that would ban the discharge of firearms within 500 feet of schools and child care centers.

The measure was prompted by testimony about an incident in Waterbury in which residents said firearms were being discharged from a problem property near a day care. "For the record, my name is Chris Bradley. I have the honor of representing the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs," Bradley said, and he told the committee his group represents about 50 clubs and roughly 14,000 members statewide.

Bradley told the committee he believes Waterbury already had local tools to address the problem and that a 500-foot buffer would be overly broad. He pointed to examples in his hometown of Northfield, saying the school district owns nine noncontiguous parcels totaling about 64 acres, and that Norwich University owns roughly 43 noncontiguous properties totaling about 1,320 acres. Bradley said the combination of school-owned land and a 500-foot offset could exclude thousands of acres of otherwise lawful shooting: "With a 500 foot offset in all directions, around a 64 acres property property can be easily appreciated at a sizable portion of land in Northfield will be affected," he told the committee.

A Vermont State Police criminal-division official, appearing for the department, urged the committee to consider language from federal law that focuses on buildings and includes exceptions for authorized activity. The official summarized the department's case-record method and said the department counts incidents where bullets struck property or people; using that standard the official said the department recorded five homicides within 500 feet of a school or child-care facility from 2022 to 2024 and 11 if a broader perimeter was applied. He urged the committee to consider federal language that centers the prohibition on a school building and that exempts authorized school programs, security contractors and law enforcement.

Lawmakers raised other enforcement and drafting questions. Several members said the bill's "knowingly" mental element needs clarification so that a person hunting in a remote area who does not know they are near an offsite parcel owned by a school would not be criminally liable. Senators also noted practical problems such as moving school buses and school-owned parcels that are not contiguous with buildings; one lawmaker said the bill should be targeted at school buildings and immediate grounds rather than every parcel a school district owns.

Senator Biles said she would "support adding the, you know, carrying a firearm into a child care center," but that the committee should be careful to draft a provision that targets buildings and grounds where children are present rather than distant parcels.

Several committee members suggested alternative tools that could address the Waterbury example without adopting a broad, statutory buffer: local noise or disorderly-conduct ordinances and existing criminal statutes that address reckless endangerment, unlawful possession or sale of firearms in connection with drug crimes. Bradley and others said local ordinances solved similar problems in their communities and that law enforcement already had existing statutes to pursue criminal conduct.

Committee members and the state police official signaled interest in revisiting the bill after more drafting work. The committee chair said the item could be retooled and considered in a future session because, as presented, members saw drafting and enforcement questions that need resolution.

No formal motion or vote on the bill was recorded during the Feb. 26 discussion.