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 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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.