This just in from Senate Majority Leader Philip Baruth (D-Chittenden): He’s abandoning an attempt to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in Vermont.
In a statement emailed to Seven Days Sunday evening, Baruth says he’s planning to withdraw a gun control bill he introduced in the Senate just last Tuesday.
The move comes a day after roughly 250 gun rights activists rallied at the Statehouse in opposition to Baruth’s bill and other measures to restrict access to firearms.
In a three-paragraph statement, Baruth wrote that it’s “painfully clear to me now that little support exists in the Vermont Statehouse for this sort of bill” and that he feared the legislation “may already be overshadowing measures with greater consensus.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Now how come he didn’t hear the message about single payer healthcare? Surely there is more to this than 250 people rallying outside the Statehouse?
We want to believe the government is not our enemy but with so many elected officials ignoring their duty and oath of office it’s pretty damn hard. The semi-auto and normal capacity proposed ban had nothing to do with safety. It was a knee-jerk, feel-good reaction to the media pushing their point of view. All Vermont elected officials should read and remember article 6 of the state constitution – all officials elected or appointed are the servants of the people.
I contacted Leahy and voiced my opposition to a ban on what they have coined as assault rifles and high capacity magazines. He sent me a response thanking me for my support of an assault weapons ban and then in the paper touts that he has the support of Vermonters. I can’t help but wonder what Vermonters he is referring to because the majority and close to all that I have spoken with about this so far are dead set against it. I don’t know many who appose a background check from FFL dealers or gun shows but private sale is on the fence. The Federal government has no business in this and it can be handled at a state level. Ordinances can be passed that would prohibit private sale in public or sponsored events without a background check. If you know someone and want to sell them a firearm that is your responsibility to know who you sold to and to keep record of the sale. It would be nice to have the ability of accessing the system for background checks if you “want” to for a fee of course. Beyond the 4473 there should never be a registry of weapons and their locations. The press recently proved how dangerous that can be and that was on an extremely limited scale. That information is a matter of local and national security and can not be on computers anywhere. The 4473 in the FFL dealers possession is adequate. The mental health part is a bit tricky. I can understand people on mind altering medications that cause hallucinations, violence or things of that nature not being in possession of firearms but what about someone who just lost one of their parents and they started taking some antidepressant. They likely had to turn their firearms in but why? Were they actually a danger? Can you prove it? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Who can take away your inalienable rights? Who are they to say or do anything? Just the same they took them anyway so some time later the person stops taking the drug. They are fine, everything is back to the way it was except the government stole their personal property. Is the property returned? Is the infringement on the persons right permanent? What about false accusations? I could go on and on but one more. What if after it is passed and those with mental health problems cannot possess a firearm. Great so we have paper that says NO. Not sure what good that paper is really going to do but now there is this door open. You are a gun owner. You are given a survey. One question on it asks you if you believe the 2nd amendment is to keep the people armed for rebellion against tyranny. Yes or No. You give the logical answer being Yes because that is the amendments specific intent and they say yes this one is crazy. No gun for you.
mr baruth needs to grow a pair. his introduction of this bill was the right thing to do. until a bill like this actually gets debated and voted on, the citizens of vermont won’t have any way of knowing exactly who’s for it and who’s against it. and we deserve to know! let’s make the legislators show their stripes (or lack thereof).
If a private seller has concerns about a prospective buyer all they need do is run the transaction through an FFL. For a nominal fee gun shops will help you with this transaction.
No one with depression is forced to turn in their firearms. Hell, in this state convicted felons can have guns because there is no state law against it.
There is a federal law that bans it. Ergo, a felon in VT can not own a firearm due to federal law prohibiting it. If VT had it’s own law it would simply be redundant.
So if the federal law passes then it doesn’t matter if Baruth withdrew the bill to ban or not does it?
My rights aren’t up for a vote!
That would be correct.
[the legislature]” shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of this constitution.”
Article 16 “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves and the State”
Baruth’s bill was DOA. He withdrew it because someone finally told him that. See the VT constitution specifies not only the right to bear arms but specifically for defense of themselves as well as the state i.e. for military purposes. Ergo banning a military style assault weapon would violate article 16 which isn’t allowed to be altered or infinged upon.
Vote out Baruth and fellow Reps who do not respect our Civil RIGHTS!!!!
His bill would have banned my Great Grandfathers model 1894 30-30 Winchester, it holds 6 cartridges.
Duh, he withdrew his bill. Can you please try to follow along?