Two committees of the Vermont Senate summoned a pair of Harvard Business School professors to the Statehouse on Thursday in an attempt to breathe life into vetoed gun legislation.
The bill in question, S.169, would mandate a 24-hour waiting period before most handgun purchases. It cleared the legislature last May but was vetoed in June by Republican Gov. Phil Scott.
Since then, legislative leaders have struggled to decide whether to compromise with the governor or attempt to override his veto, which would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers. While the measure met that threshold last year in the Senate, it fell short in the House on a vote of 82 to 58.
On Thursday, senators sought to convince their colleagues — and perhaps the governor — that the bill could, in fact, save lives. They invited professors Deepak Malhotra and Michael Luca to present their research showing that waiting periods cut the homicide rate by 17 percent and the suicide rate by 7 to 11 percent.
“If this policy passes, if the objective is to reduce gun deaths, that would be something you could very much expect,” Malhotra told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.
The professors reached their conclusions after analyzing the outcomes of various state-based waiting periods over a 45-year span and studying the impact of a national waiting period in effect from 1994 to 1998. They determined that, throughout the country, waiting periods could prevent 900 homicides and 950 suicides a year.
Such measures, Malhotra conceded, were “not a magic wand,” noting that 90 percent of suicides would still take place. “But every one of those deaths has an impact on the family, the community, the entire state,” he said.
Less clear from their research, the professors acknowledged, was whether the length of a waiting period made it more or less effective. They were not able to study the efficacy of a 24-hour waiting period because no state has enacted such a limited measure.
Scott cited that paucity of applicable data last year in explaining his veto to reporters. “There are no comparisons to a 24-hour waiting period on handguns alone,” he said at a press conference. “There are no-apples-to-apples comparisons.”
The governor hasn’t, apparently, changed his mind since. According to spokesperson Rebecca Kelley, Scott “stands by this decision” and believes that “the best way to build upon the work we’ve done to reduce gun violence and suicide is to focus on the root causes.” She cited proposals from his budget address earlier this week that would increase funding for suicide prevention and early intervention programs.
“If the Senate disagrees, they have the ability to override the governor’s veto,” Kelley said.
Whether the Senate will attempt to do so remained unclear after the professors delivered their testimony. During a brief discussion about what to do next, members of the Judiciary Committee complained that the administration had not made clear what the governor would support and what he wouldn’t.
“It’s hard to make that decision without actually hearing from them,” said Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), who chairs the committee.
One option, Sears suggested, would be to increase the duration of the waiting period — something the senator has previously opposed. Another would be to strip out that portion of the bill and pass a more limited measure. Its other provisions include closing the so-called “Charleston loophole” by requiring background checks to be completed prior to a sale and allowing medical professionals to request “extreme risk protection orders” against those they deem a risk to public safety.
That’s the preferred approach of Bill Moore, a firearms policy analyst for the Vermont Traditions Coalition, which supports gun rights. “There’s consensus on all of the other elements,” he said. “So we would strongly urge both [chambers] to go ahead and just take out the waiting period — have that debate on another platform.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) said he believes the Senate “should do anything we can to get a waiting period passed into law to save lives.” But, he added, “We’re also realistic. There are three partners in this, and hopefully the research helps people make a better decision.”
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A study published in 2012 found no measurable statistical effect on gun violence following the implementation of waiting period laws. A study published in 2000 in the JAMA found no change in homicide rates subsequent to the implementation of waiting periods for firearm purchases. The study indicated that these policies may be associated with a small reduction in the rate of gun suicide for those 55 and older, but there was no association with any reduction in the rate of suicide overall. A 2003 report from the Center for Disease Control found insufficient evidence for any determination that waiting periods have any effect on firearm fatalities. Of the research that has been done, the vast majority is in agreement that there is no evidence that these policies have caused any decrease in firearm-related deaths where they have been implemented.
In contrast to the broad body of research, one oft-cited 2017 study published by the National Academy of Sciences claims that waiting period laws applied exclusively to handguns caused a 17 percent reduction in gun homicide and a 7-11 percent reduction in gun suicides. In peer review it has been noted that this study failed to account for relevant variables, relied upon statistical comparisons among states geographically rather than within states temporally to determine effect, and measured change cumulatively over long periods of time rather than running analysis looking for the “statistical cliff” that should be evident upon the implementation of a policy whose full effect would become apparent within the length of the waiting period itself. In a CNN article from October 2017, co-author of the study, Deepak Malhotra, minimized the suicide claim when he stated that there was evidence to, “suggest that suicides also are reduced, but further research might be necessary on that issue. “
That’s why we won in Afghanistan in a few days. Wait, we’re in the second decade?
Doesn’t that argument only solidify the need to nullify laws that impede on the second? At the time of it’s drafting, the civilian had the same weapons as the regulars. Merchant ships had crew serviced cannon.
Repeal the NFA.
“archaic thinking that we might need to be sufficiently armed to stop a potentially intrusive government”
We do not have fighter jets, tanks, heavy weaponry, etc.
We have, through the representatives that we have elected, built up our military to a level that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to be sufficiently armed against the government.
I understand the historical foundation of this argument, but, without members of the military defecting and bringing their weapons with them, which I am not advocating for, even a large body of armed American citizens doesn’t have the weaponry to stop a “potentially intrusive government”.
Now let me see if I understand…if folks take a pause before they buy a gun there will be fewer anger impulse shootings…from newly purchased guns. Lord! How can you argue with that…Makes perfect sense. Right? And now the science guys from up on the “research pantheon” have graced us with “empirical evidence” in case we didn’t see the obvious. Well, I guess that settles it. Let’s make a law to REQUIRE EVERYONE buying a gun to take such an anger impulse pause. Why not? No sacrifice if too much if one life is saved… etc. After all, we’ve acquiesced in the face of the continuing barrage of “protective” laws and regulations. Obstructing the 2ndA is not really that big a thing. Right? Silly us…archaic thinking that we might need to be sufficiently armed to stop a potentially intrusive government. This impulse pause idea may have some legs in other arenas. Let think about this. We know testosterone driven outbursts are probably a source of many problems…deaths even. We could get our “scientists” to prove it and then ask our legislator to consider protecting us from this danger? Some sort of restrictive cuff perhaps?
When you consider all the fiscal challenges facing the state, and then think about the challenges in our prison system, Department of Children’s & Families and the crushing pension obligations the legislature continues to ignore and kick down the road, it is outrageous that the Democratic party is more interested in promoting the national party agenda on gun control, in the safest state in the nation.
We need some adults in Montpelier who have our priorities straight, and it isn’t in gun control.
I wish I could say it is unbelievable, but this is the kind of garbage we’ve come to expect from liberals.
“ It’s a lot easier to call for cuts in the abstract than to tell us WHAT you want to cut and why “
Well the Governor has made it pretty clear what cuts and spending initiatives he would like to make, and I’ll use the student to staff ratio debate of a few years ago which the house speaker and the senate pro tem stopped in its tracks.
So the proposals are out there, and have been out there out for some time now, but you can’t a lead a horse to water as the saying goes.
“How about some bills that cut programs, costs, staffing.” How about it? Let’s hear your proposals. It’s a lot easier to call for cuts in the abstract than to tell us WHAT you want to cut and why.
If Scott would want to address financial issues of the oversized State government and over taxed VT taxpayers, he could appoint a high powered task force to seek solutions.
Charge this task force with increasing State revenue without tax or fee increases. Reduce expenses wherever possible, perhaps making investments into technology that pay off in short order. Increase/improve State government efficiency, especially in service sectors. Review taxes and fees in a matter of passing fairness and “snicker” tests.
Utilize the powerhouse of smart VT business and finance leaders. Try to avoid use of legislators. Input from Harvard is not necessarily needed.
It seems simple to me. Everyone wants to have their cause to be taken up under the Dome. Most causes require funding. Even playing the shell game is a nonstarter. Folks, VT State finances are in shambles and frankly, a disgrace. If strides can be made to improve this situation, then new or changed legislation can and should be addressed. Until then, ya gotta be able to pay if you want to play.
More wasted time, energy and money at the state house. How about some bills that cut programs, costs, staffing. Less is more, especially where government is concerned.
So we’re going to revisit the gun bill, the minimum wage bill, the paid family leave bill, and the medical monitoring chemical bill.
I’m betting this has more to do with overriding the governor’s vetoes for political points than the substance of each bill..