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!
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.
Good points, well taken. Extra credit for correct use of the term “agitprop.”
“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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Dude, we just banned “fracking,” when no one — absolutely NO ONE was trying to “frack” in Vermont.
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.
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.