Gun Sense Vermont cofounder Ann Braden conceded Tuesday that her group is unlikely to achieve its goal this year of requiring near-universal background checks for gun buyers. But she expressed hope that two other provisions in a controversial gun-control bill may still move forward before the end of the legislative session.
“We have a very long view on this,” Braden said. “Two years ago, there wasn’t any way any gun provision would be debated. This is a long-term campaign to really change the conversation, so we can pass legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”
As written, the bill faces steep odds in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its chairman, Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), opposes requiring those buying guns in private sales to undergo federal background checks. But Sears said Tuesday his committee may still vote on the bill’s other two components after legislators’ Town Meeting Day break next week.
Those provisions would:
- Make it illegal for convicted felons to posses guns under state law, as they are under federal law.
- Require the state to report to a federal database the names of those deemed by a court to be dangerous and mentally ill.
“I don’t know what we’ll do,” Sears said.
Last weekend, the Valley News’ Rob Wolfe reported that the bill’s chief sponsor, Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell (D-Windsor), had likewise conceded defeat on mandatory background checks, but still believed some version of the bill could pass.
“I always knew that the first part was going to be a little difficult — the background checks — but [in] these other two areas, I think there’s sufficient evidence to show how useful it can be and how this can and will save lives,” he told the newspaper.
Gun-rights activists are opposing all provisions of the bill, S.31, according to Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs vice president Evan Hughes. He maintains Vermont is one of the safest states in the nation and has no need for changes to its gun laws. Hughes and others see such changes as a violation of their constitutional right to bear arms.
Sears is setting out to show that some gun-safety provisions make sense. His committee will focus on a single question during a hearing Wednesday: “Should Vermont have a law that would prohibit a person convicted of a violent crime and/or certain drug trafficking offenses from possessing a firearm?”
Law enforcement officers who previously declared opposition to the background checks portion of the bill will testify in support of a state law prohibiting felons from possessing guns, Sears said.
He said many of his constituents who oppose expanding background checks support the mental health and felon provisions. As for requiring Vermonters who are conducting private gun sales to go to a gun dealer for a background check, Sears said his constituents have been more consistently opposed.
Sears said he was convinced that expanding background checks to private sales was a mistake after he visited a local gun shop. Its owner told the senator that if two parties asked him to conduct a background check for transfer of a hunting rifle, he would charge the buyer $45, which seemed impractical, Sears recounted.
“There’s a reason Congress left it the way it is,” he said.
Braden said she hasn’t given up on expanding background checks eventually.
“This isn’t our last year,” she said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
then pass the provisions pertaining to the mental health and felon aspects of the law because sadly, many out of state people are taking advantage of our laws to gain access to guns they shouldn’t have. I don’t like being used and having my state look like a bunch of gun freaks because we don’t have the protections in place against those who exploit our state system.
I don’t understand. I had a criminal background check to become a teacher. I paid for Drivers’ Ed and pay my car registration every year. I purchase a fishing license to fish with my son in the summer. If I get pregnant, in many states, I need to drive 300 miles, pay for a hotel, pay for child care, lose wages, get an invasive exam in my vagina, and wait 72 hours to get a legal medical procedure.
I don’t understand what is so prohibitive about a background check that costs $45. Especially when the consequences stand to be so dire. I don’t understand why this would even be a noteworthy inconvenience, let alone infringe upon anyone’s rights. Seriously, if you’re not responsible enough to scrape together $45 to handle a deadly firearm, maybe…
What part of shall not be infringed don’t they understand?
There are many problems with S31 going well beyond the universal background check provision causing I and most gun owners to continue to oppose it in its entirety. The definition of a Firearm in S31 does Not match the Federal Statutes. S31 redefines firearms to include antique weapons specifically excluded by Federal law. The provision in S31 that add names of the adjudicated Mentally Ill the National Gun Registry is the most dangerous. We see horror stories of Federal and Vermont’s registries. Elderly and even babies denied the ability to board an airplane because their name is similar to a name on the “No Fly List”. Vermont’s is unable to maintain an accurate “Sex Offender Registry. People who should on it are left of and people who should not be on it on listed. The State is shooting for a goal of 95% accuracy. Once on these lists, it is virtually impossible to get off even if there is no legal justification for being on it. What about the issue of privacy? Will employers, Insurance companies and News Media have access to such a public list? Will your name appear in the Burlington Free Press or 7 Days. The American Psychiatric Association reports that one in two Americans suffer from some form of mental illness and one out of five Americans have a diagnosable Mental Disorder. This is the same groups that use to claim “Homosexuality” is a mental disease and people with sexual organ damage could be “Trained” through gender reassignment. Forgive me if I and most Vermonters do not trust a Michael Bloomberg funded, “Gun nonsense Vermont” bought and paid for legislature to do the right thing. NO TO S31 in its entirety.
*sigh* So, there’s already a law, on the federal level, that says that felons cannot possess guns….. and you want to pass a *second* law that says the same thing, but on the state level. Why will two laws that do the same thing achieve results that one law did not alone? If it’s an issue of your state failing to enforce the federal law, why don’t you change things so that your state enforces federal law? Does that not seem a more reasonable approach?
Further, what mandate does the *court* have to decide *medical* matters? If it were that the state must report people who a medical panel deemed dangerous or mentally ill, that would be more reasonable.
“This is a long-term campaign to really change the conversation, so we can pass legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands.” This is the problem, these people will never stop. If we give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. They’re socialists who hate the fact that citizens have constitutionally protected freedoms including the right to own firearms to defend themselves and their families. They’ll be back next year and the year after that with ever increasing restrictions on your liberties until you have none. There is no end. These people are the worst kind of evil. And I’m still wondering how she plans on having her so-called “conversation” when the dialog only goes one way.
Go home Ann Braden. You’re drunk.
No new gun laws!
As Braden said this ism’ their last year! To further interpret it means we get to listen to lies and flatlander sob stories for the foreseeable future!
Go home Gunnonsensevt! Take your flatland carpetbagger friends with you. In Vermont, we do things a little differently than you. We don’t need outsiders coming here and trying to make our way of life more in line with what you left behind. It seems you may have brought with you what you left behind. The distrust and paranoia you had back home have no place here. We’ve been doing it right for well over 200 years.