The State of Vermont has been a participant in the NICS program as a Point of Contact State since November of 1998. As a Point of Contact (POC) State the federal firearms licensee (FFL) contacts the State of Vermont rather than NICS to conduct the pre-sale criminal record check. As the Director of the Vermont Crime Information Center I supervise the Vermont NICS program. My testimony will focus on the NICS system from the perspective of a POC State.

In 1998, when the State of Vermont was planning for the implementation of the permanent provisions of the Brady Law, Governor Dean had two program alternatives from which to choose. FFLs could contact NICS directly for the pre-sale record check or FFLs could process their request through a Vermont Point of Contact. Governor Dean ordered that Vermont would take the latter approach and participate in NICS as a POC State. This option was selected because if the FFL contacted NICS directly for a record check, NICS would only query records in federal repositories. In Vermont, 80% of our felony convictions are not forwarded to the FBI’s criminal record repository because they are not fingerprint supported. In addition, due to resource limitations, Vermont does not contribute Relief From Abuse Orders to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the vast majority of Vermont wanted persons are also not entered into NCIC . As such, if FFLs were allowed to contact NICS directly, NICS would have no knowledge of these state records and as a result, some individuals who should have been disqualified from purchasing a firearm would be cleared for purchase. If FFLs contacted a Vermont POC, however, checks of the Vermont Criminal History System, the Vermont Relief From Abuse Database, and the Vermont Wanted Person Database would be conducted in addition to the NICS check.

Our analysis of NICS transactions indicates that the option ordered by Governor Dean was the right one. From November, 1998, through June 1, 2000, the Vermont POC conducted nearly 30,000 checks. Approximately 700 firearm purchases were denied because the buyer was a disqualified person under the provisions of the Brady Law. Of those 700 denials, it is estimated that 28 percent were denials based on state charges which would not have been available to NICS had the FFLs contacted NICS directly. These purchasers were denied because a relief from abuse order had been issued against them, they had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of family violence, they were wanted in the State of Vermont, or they had been convicted of a felony in Vermont and not fingerprinted. These results demonstrate the value of having the states act as a NICS point of contact.

PROGRAM ISSUES

Despite the success of the Vermont POC program, we do have two concerns regarding the implementation of the Brady Law – the lack of financial support for POC States and the number of final dispositions which are missing from criminal records.

When Vermont became a POC State it was with the understanding that the NICS program would be a user-fee supported program. We had planned to fund our state program by charging FFLs the same fee that NICS would have charged them if they had contacted NICS directly. In the final version of the Brady Act, however, the fee provision was deleted. As a result, the State of Vermont and other POC States had to scramble to identify alternative sources of funding. In Vermont the POC program is currently supported by general revenue funds. During this past legislative session, however, there was considerable pressure to redirect funds from the POC program to other priorities. Fortunately, advocates of the POC program were able to prevail – at least for another year. In order to ensure the continued participation of the State of Vermont and other states as POCs we would strongly recommend a NICS user fee or an appropriation directly to the state to operate the NICS center.

A second issue which hampers our ability to conduct the Brady checks in an effective manner is the amount of missing data on criminal records. Final case dispositions are missing on approximately 75% of the criminal records reviewed by the Vermont POC. When a felony arrest is found on a record a staff person must determine if that arrest was prosecuted, and if prosecuted whether the case is still pending or whether the case ended in conviction. If this case disposition information is missing the check cannot be completed and a delay response must be returned to the FFL. If the matter cannot be resolved within three days, as is frequently the case, the sale proceeds by default. On average, one case a week results in a default proceed transaction in Vermont. If the case is later resolved to indicate that the purchaser was a disqualified person then ATF must be contacted to effect retrieval of the firearm.

The State of Vermont strongly supports full funding of the Crime Identification Technology Act (CITA) and National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) as major tools to assist the states to resolve the problem of missing dispositions. Both of these programs endorse a model which would facilitate the ability of a state’s criminal history repository to improve the quality and completeness of criminal records and to advance criminal justice data integration and data sharing projects. These types of efforts should result in better quality records and create a single point of contact in each state for the timely resolution of missing data cases so as to avoid default proceed transactions.

I appreciate the invitation to appear before the Committee. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.