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:

Paul Heintz was part of the Seven Days news team from 2012 to 2020. He served as political editor and wrote the "Fair Game" political column before becoming a staff writer.

33 replies on “At Shumlin’s Request, NRA Releases Gov’s Endorsement Questionnaire”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. The guv has it right. States have diverse demographic and regional differences, and should be able to make decisions based on local preferences.

  9. 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.

  10. ” 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.

Comments are closed.