A newly-released questionnaire filled out by Gov. Peter Shumlin last fall as he sought the National Rifle Association’s endorsement shows how little room there is between the gun lobby’s positions and his own.
In the 25-question endorsement survey filled out during his 2012 reelection campaign, Shumlin appeared to side with the NRA in all but one case: he disagreed that the mourning dove should be classified as a game bird — “not on principle,” he wrote in the margins, “but because Vermont does not have a viable hunting population of doves, and they are primarily found in backyards and roadsides.”
On every other issue, though, Shumlin was all in on gun rights:
Does he want to close the gun show loophole in Vermont? No.
Would he support a state ban on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines? No.
Does he support mandatory gun locks? No.
Does he believe Vermonters should be restricted to buying one gun a month? No.
Does he believe guns or gun-owners should be licensed in Vermont? No.
Shumlin’s answers help explain why he earned a 92 percent rating from the NRA last fall and a $2500 campaign donation. (Shumlin may have lost points for the ‘mourning dove’ question and for leaving two others blank.)
Seven Days has been seeking a copy of Shumlin’s answers to the survey since December 17, shortly after a gunman opened fire on a school in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 young children and six teachers.
Shumlin’s campaign manager said at the time she did not keep a copy of the questionnaire. The NRA did not respond to a request from Seven Days to provide it. But after the paper asked Shumlin this week to request a copy from the NRA himself, his staff obtained it and passed it along to Seven Days.
Here it is — after the jump:
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Shumlin’s clear hypocrisy on the issue of “Vermont leading the way” except when it comes to gun control, should make everyone suspicious of anything the guy says he believes. He’s a used car salesman, a huckster, a follower, not a leader. “Getting tough things done?” Pure baloney. The guy doesn’t actually believe in anything, except his own political ambitions.
Is he REALLY going hunting in those nice, clean running shoes? Well, that’s beside the point. He is trying – and so far, failing, I think – to walk a line where he is on both sides of the gun control issue. He has clearly stated his preference, and I think he has a point about gun control needing to be a 50-state solution. But just like single-payer health care (which he cites as an issue that can be tackled by the states) the Massachusetts model for health care overhaul served ultimately as the federal model. Vermont could, and, I believe, should, do the same with regard to gun control. We Vermonters are a very practical bunch, not prone to hysterics (usually). And there is a wonderful mix of progressives, conservatives, rural and city folks that still, for the most part, manage to co-exist peacefully in this state without the stinky polarization that seems to be affecting the rest of the country.
AMAZING ARTICLE!!!!! keep up the great work and fact checking!!!! what i get from what he said however is that he isn’t going to deal with it until something happens in our state forcing him to come to the rescue. i hate to say but maybe something similar to what happen in 2006 in Essex. i hope and pray nothing happens and no one is harmed because of Shumlin’s lack of leadership on this issue.
Gov Shumlin’s position is not unreasonable with conditions at the time. Connetticut has some of the harshest Gun Laws in the Country yet it did not stop the Newton atrocity. Why? The Perp violated the law, killing his mother taking her gun and going to the school and violating it. The Sikh Temple Shooter was on Several “Hate” Watch Lists and should not have had possession of a gun. The “Mall” Shooter stole his gun. McViegh used a bomb. Until we deal with the underlying causes of this violence we are only applying a Panacea to the problem by restricting guns. American’s demand Quick, easy, simple answers to difficult question and Reporters like PAUL HEINTZ do a lousy job of reporting when they perpetuate that flaw in our character. You should be ashamed.
Also evident from this story is how each question on the NRA questionnaire contains a preamble that discourages any reply that is not in agreement with the the NRA party-line. This invalidates the poll as a objective survey of respondent opinions. Of course, this is not surprising, as the NRA has a clear agenda and wrote the survey to support that agenda.
Disagree. Yes, there is a culture of violence that we should deal with. But if the mentally ill or disturbed didn’t have easy access to guns, they couldn’t commit mass murders. You can’t commit mass murders with a knife or a baseball bat. The gun is the last link in the chain of these mass killings. If you make the gun less easy to get your hands on, you reduce the atrocities. It’s pretty simple, really. Shumlin is being a hypocrite for what — a $2,500 campaign donation? He should be ashamed.
[Shumlin] said, “If it applied to all 50 states and was sensible, I’d obviously
consider it. But since I don’t vote on federal bills — I’m not a member
of Congress, I’m not the President of the United States — it’s not
something I spend a lot of time worrying about.”
Very interesting…it seems to me that when Dubie used this argument in reference to the abortion issue Shummy was all for not letting slide and wanting him to answer the questions directly… now that it is a convient excuse to dodge political fallout Shumlins a big fan…and hypocrit.
I disagree.
” But if the mentally ill or disturbed didn’t have easy access to guns, they couldn’t commit mass murders.”
False. While guns may make it easier, had Lauzon herded all the kids into a classroom and detonated a homemade bomb (easily made and easily obtained) it would likely have killed even more and more easily. If you try to fix a problem by taking something away it will most assuredly be replaced with something else.
Really? You thought that a postion poll that the NRA sent to a candidate to decide on who to endorse was going to be objective? You seemed confused about the purpose and reasoning behind this document.
Shumlin enacting a ban on any type of gun in this state would be political suicide. There aren’t many people outside Chittenden County that do not hold gun rights sacred and Pete is smart enough to know how to keep himself in office.
There is a difference here too between gun laws and health care. A big one. If I live on any state border I can’t a mile down the road and buy illegal health insurance. That’s why it doesn’t make a lot of sense to to ban guns in a single state.
” Hallenbeck wrote. “This argument seems to transcend all issues except
gun control. That, Shumlin says, is a federal issue.””
Here Shumlin is entirely wrong. It is in fact a state issue. The actual wording of the amendment …
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed”
clearly points out the right to own a gun is a key component of being able to raise a militia.
Now this maybe news to Shummy but he is in fact the commander in chief of any militia raised in the State of Vermont and is thus responsible for protecting the ability of VT residents to arm themselves if needed. Now, hypothetically if VT were to secede from the union and forced to raise a militia, who wants to be armed with a single shot gun and who would like to have something a little more automated? Ergo, its all pretty simple, Shumlin is required by the constitution to in fact oppose gun law restrictions.
This is further spelled out in the VT constitution article 16
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves and the State”
The people have a right to DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THE STATE. Now anyone who believes that you could defend the state in a martial situation with out a semi-automatic weapon… well go ahead and sharpen your pitchforks, your going to be the front line.
Kudos to Shummy he got one right even if for the wrong reasons.
First of all, it wasn’t the Mayor of Barre who committed this mass murder, it was a guy named Adam Lanza.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that if he hadn’t had access to an automatic weapon, Lanza would have herded the kids into a single classroom and thrown a bomb into the classroom? Exactly how would he have done that? You’re veering off into the untenable, if not ridiculous, here.
The guv has it right. States have diverse demographic and regional differences, and should be able to make decisions based on local preferences.
So, then why can’t Vermont pass its own gun control legislation? Our Used-Car-Salesman-In-Chief is being a hypocrite because he wants to run for higher office someday and doesn’t want to piss off the NRA. Plain and simple.
Um, why? Vermont doesn’t have a problem with gun violence. It makes no sense to make a law about something that isn’t a problem. If the Congress gets its act together and passes something, then we should go along with it here without making a fuss. But it makes zero sense to me to do it here first when it’s not a problem here.
You can say that about tons of non-problems that Shumlin and the do-ooders want to fix in Vermont. Why leave out the non-problem of gun violence
Feel free to post a list of all those non-problems Shumlin et al want to fix.
This is true. There was a good attempt at a school here where a former student converted a fire extinguisher into flame thrower and entered an exam full of kids.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…
You can find it on various news sites as well.
I read banning stuff to basically saying to the people. You are not the least part resourceful in construction something that is capable of killing something else. Something that humans have been doing for 1000’s of years.
The media reported it was a semi automatic AR-15 sporting rifle. Not automatic. Secondly, the market for automatic rifles and pistols (true small arm made for war) have been closed since the 1980’s. Lastly, you’re downplaying alternate modes for murder as being viable option for someone suicidal and intent of killing a large amount of people, including him or herself. Remember Timmothy McVey? He bombed a federal building and took out a preschool in the process. Also, simple gases when highly compressed in a canister the size of a soda bottle, filled with metal nuts and nails for shrapnel, when rapidly released from a high pressure state, can send shrapnel sailing at high velocity, to cause casualties and/or injuries inside a full classroom, particularly when the small bomb wielding criminal has a monopoly of force and controls the only classroom exist(s). So yes, a small bomb packed with shrapnel is a viable alternative to a semi automatic firearm containing a 20+1 high capacity magazine.
It’s my understanding that the regulation of firearms is a state concern not a federal concern since the Constitution does not specify the Federal government as having authority over firearm regulation, so it passes to the states, much like marriage law does . Yet Congress does regulate commerce, and that’s where they can do their damage.
I agree with you on one point you make. As you say, Vermont does not have a problem with gun violence. We do however, have a high rate of gun ownership. Firearms, and responsible firearm ownership, whether for hunting, collecting, pride, family heirloom, target practice, self defense, etc., are a hugely viable part of Vermont’s culture. However, If Congress does get its act together, as you say, and passes something, we SHOULD make a fuss, but we will involuntarily comply, just not consent, because added legislation, only punishes responsible gun owning Vermont families who do not deserve to pay the price for rare tragedies brought on by a minority of mentally unstable, suicidal, homicidal people doing damage outside the state. 20 children were killed in Newtown, CT. For sake of perspective, on that same day, another 55,000,000 children attended school without incidence. Mass killing in schools, through terrible, is still a extremely rare event, and firearm crime rates have been in decline over the past 20 years, and continued on a 7 year decline even after the 1994 assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004.
Well, nobody on the federal level is seriously going to try to restrict ownership of hunting rifles, which are the main deal here. And it’s really obvious that state-level restrictions on things like assault rifles and handguns simply don’t work. So as far as I’m concerned, all of us can live with whatever minimal (and you know it won’t be more than that) restrictions the feds can manage to pass, and for the good of the entire country, I think we should go along with it. I don’t really think we want to be in the company of states like Alabama on this issue.
Dude, we just banned “fracking,” when no one — absolutely NO ONE was trying to “frack” in Vermont.
Not to mention the alleged healthcare crisis, gay marriage, marijuana decrimininalization, immigration rights, etc. All of these were not problems in VT, but Shumlin and the Dem. legislature felt the need to “fix” them anyway. So, I ask again, if Shumlin and the legislature feel it necessary to address certain “non-problems,” why not address the so-called “non-problem” of gun violence in VT, too?
Answer: because Shumlin is a hypocrite, that’s why.
Yeah I can definitely see both sides of the issue here in terms of “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.” I also think that it’s never to early to act if a problem may be looming.
My own thinking is that I know a LOT of hunters in VT (I live in Addison County) and gun owners but only a miniscule number of people who own assault rifles. And most of those are ex-military/police. So what would be the harm in banning assault rifles for all but active or ex-military and police (that is, those who have received training in their use and have well-earned respect for their lethality).
I just don’t think the “rights” of a relatively tiny number of assault rifle owners outweigh the rest of us who own firearms to hunt, skeet shoot, pistol shoot, protect the home, etc. but also would rather prevent a law abiding but unhinged individual (like, oh, I don’t know, a disgruntled teacher in Bennington who has “studied military tactics”) to get their hands on one.
John the one thing I have never been able to get out of the pro-assault rifle folks is why one needs to own an assault rifle in the first place? I get the 2nd Amendment argument, but it rings hollow – “The 2d Amendment says I CAN have an assault rifle, therefore I SHOULD have one.” If your kids said that to you, you’d tell them they were nuts. It’s like Chris Rock said – “You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that don’t make it a good ____ing idea.”
I understand your points (and on a personal level, I’d be delighted to ban all this stuff and more), but there’s a touchy political battle here that we ignore to our peril. In a state where gun violence isn’t a problem, to start banning things that aren’t being misused just gets a lot of people’s backs up and hardens attitudes unnecessarily. If you follow the idea that ” it’s never to early to act if a problem may be looming,” then you’d be for banning all guns and all kinds of other overreach.
I know a couple of mild-mannered and responsible hunters who sat out the presidential election because they don’t trust Obama on this issue and heard somewhere that Romney once supported gun control. It may seem irrational to you, but particularly given NRA agitprop, it’s a very strongly held feeling among a lot of people even in mostly liberal Vermont. I see no point in stirring up a hornets’ nest over something that isn’t a problem in this state and as has been abundantly proved by now, couldn’t be fixed by individual state action even if it were.
It’s a dumb battle to have in this state, IMO. Let the feds fight this out.
“If you follow the idea that ” it’s never to early to act if a problem may be looming,” then you’d be for banning all guns and all kinds of other overreach.”
I would totally agree with you. But that’s not the approach the Dems in Vt. have taken. They have felt the need to fix a lot of things that just aint been broke in Vt.
I’m saying this not because I thing we ought to continue fixing things that aint broke, but only to emphasize what a frickin hypocrite Shumlin is.
And for what — 2,500 pieces of silver in campaign funds? Can you say, Judas?
Good points, well taken. Extra credit for correct use of the term “agitprop.”
Actually the second amendment states that in order to maintain a well armed MILITIA the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Should we raise a militia with single shot firearms?
The idea was that the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical gov’t, their own if necessary. That’s why banning assault rifles is a bad idea. Now, I doubt the current population has the will to stand up to the US gov’t, however eliminating the option is so outside the original premise and importance of the Constitution as to make all other rights pale in comparison.
That said, the issue with banning “semi-automatic assault” rifles causes a serious concern as to what constitutes an assault rifle. Many hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-automatic. Are those banned? Let’s face it, the main difference in terms of efficacy between a semi-auto assault rifle and a semi-auto rifle is aesthetic. If you ban “assault” style rifles, someone will use a “hunting semi-auto” to cause harm. With a semi-auto ban it will then be very easy to ban all semi-automatic firearms… That slippery slope is why most people will oppose this type of ban, and yet would support a “fully” automatic ban.
Actually, the Second Amendment does NOT say a “well-armed” militia. It’s a “well REGULATED” militia. This seems to be a common misperception. And, yes, the Second Amendment (as all the amendments) was a compromise position to get the Constitution ratified. Having just undergone the revolutionary war, and being a country with no standing army, it certainly made sense at the time.
I also respectfully disagree with you that the difference between, say, a Browning or Remington gas autoloader hunting-style rifle and a Sig Sauer Tactical or Bushmaster AR is merely aesthetic. Which is exactly why the military uses the AR style weapon. Shorter barrel, ease of switching firing positions (ie pistol grip), compatibility with high-capacity magazines, picatinny rail, etc.
There is a very simple answer to why dudes want assault-style weapons – they look awesome. I’ll be the first to admit it – you feel like a huge badass with an AR in your hands, putting rounds downrange. But that’s not enough, IMHO, to outweigh the public safety aspect.
Many of Vt.’s easy-to-get guns head to New York and Southern New England criminals. Often local drug addicts trade them for drugs. Gun show loopholes and universal background checks might reduce the amount of Vermonters that should not be buying guns, then trading them to drug dealers.
Yup. I only learned that recently, and I’ve done a 180 on the subject as a result. But we need to make it clear that it’s for this reason, not because of Vermont itself.