Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell (D-Windsor) talks to Tim Ordway of Bennington (left) and other gun owners Tuesday in the Statehouse cafeteria. Credit: Terri Hallenbeck

Every year, Vermont sportsmen host a reception for state legislators. A bunch of gun owners show up and remind lawmakers how important their right to bear arms is. This year, that bunch was quite a bit larger.

All it took to crank up turnout was a couple of gun bills on the legislature’s agenda. Dozens of gun owners, most of them clad in blaze orange, flannel and Carhartts, streamed into the Statehouse Tuesday afternoon to weigh in on the legislation.

“This year there’s more interest because of S.31,” said Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

He was referring to a bill introduced last week by Sens. John Campbell (D-Windsor), Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden) and Claire Ayer (D-Addison) that goes further than most proposals in a state where gun rights are fiercely guarded.
The bill would require background checks for all guns sales, including those conducted privately. It would ban those convicted of a felony from possessing a gun. And it would require the state to report the names of potentially dangerous, mentally ill people to a federal database used to screen gun buyers.

Lawmakers are also expected to consider a charter change Burlington voters overwhelmingly passed last March that would prohibit guns in bars, require guns to be stored in locked containers and allow police officers to confiscate weapons from suspected domestic abusers.

Gun owners with signs reading “No Vermont gun control” outnumbered legislators in the Statehouse cafeteria throughout the afternoon, as some lawmakers deliberately steered clear of the gathering.

Four gun owners button-holed Campbell, the Senate President Pro Tem and the bill’s lead sponsor, at a cafeteria table. Campbell didn’t shy away from a discussion it was clear no one would win.

“All I can tell you right now is there is no gun registration in the bill,” Campbell told Tim Ordway of Bennington. If there were, Campbell said, there’d be a lot more people protesting.

Ordway was impressed that Campbell is a gun owner himself but was unappeased by his reassurances. “Universal background checks lead to registration,” Ordway said afterward. He and his fellow gun owners are flat-out opposed to anything that resembles gun registration, seeing it as a sign the government will someday seize their guns.

If a bill makes it through the legislature, Ordway and his compatriots have Gov. Peter Shumlin on their side.

“I believe current law around guns have served us well,” Shumlin said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.

The public will have a chance to air their opinions about S.31 at a hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled for February 10 from 5:30 to 8 p.m. in the House chamber.

Lawmakers are also likely to see a crowd gather when the House starts considering last year’s Burlington charter change.

Legislators put off consideration of the measure last year, saying the issue was too complicated to the tackle in the last two months of the session. A group of Burlington legislators plans to reintroduce a bill that’s needed for the charter change to take effect, said Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington).

“I expect it will probably get a hearing,” House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown) said Tuesday.

Rep. Donna Sweaney (D-Windsor), chair of the House Government Operations Committee, where the charter change would be heard first, said she has consulted with legislative lawyers over whether the change would violate a state law, as some have suggested. State law prohibits municipalities from regulating firearms, “except as otherwise provided by law.”

The lawyers indicated it would be legal for Burlington to enact its own gun rules, Sweaney said. The debate will be over whether one community should have its own gun rules, she added.

“That will be the main thrust of this,” Sweaney said. “Do we go town by town, or do we want a unified law for the state?”

Related Stories

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Terri Hallenbeck was a Seven Days staff writer covering politics, the Legislature and state issues from 2014 to 2017.

10 replies on “Gun Debate Heats Up at the Vermont Statehouse”

  1. There should be no debate on whether Burlington can enact it’s own gun laws. That is specifically barred by the Sportsman’s Bill of Rights.

    “Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city or incorporated village, by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate hunting, fishing and trapping or the possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or registration of traps, firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition. This section shall not limit the powers conferred upon a town, city or incorporated village under section 2291(8) of this title. The provisions of this section shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of a municipal charter. (Added 1987, No. 178 (Adj. Sess.), eff. May 9, 1988.)”

    The Vermont Supreme Court also ruled on this in STATE V. ROSENTHAL in 1903 saying, (regarding a Rutland gun control law) “it is repugnant to and inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of this state.”

    I realize that Burlington thinks that they are better than the rest of us but you still have to follow state laws.

  2. Out-of-state Bloomberg gun control money is flooding into Vermont, because once again Vermont’s small size coupled with it’s decidedly liberal media base makes it relatively easy to buy opinion & control the message. The City of Burlington can’t change the Vermont Constitution- Article 16: The people “have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves & the State”. Clear & unambiguous.

  5. yes, let’s make sure that the drug dealers in VT can hold on to their AK47s and let’s also make sure that domestic abusers have access to guns so they can kill their significant others. seems savvy to me!

  6. S31 is a common sense bill to close the loophole that currently allows felons, especially out of state drug dealers to buy guns in Vermont over the internet and from unlicensed gun sellers. S31 also allows the police to remove a gun from a felon found with one. This will make domestic abuse situations less apt to result in death which does unfortunately happen in Vermont.

    Making Vermont Families safer and life tougher for drug dealers does not effect hunters in any way.

    Governor Shumlin said in his press conference that Vermonters don’t tell him that they support S31. However, GunsenseVT delivered over 12,000 signatures of Vermonters to his office this month which said that these Vermonters want Criminal Background Checks. I wonder if he is aware of this.
    Steph Holdridge, Burlington

  7. I wish the people so concerned with protecting every person’s right to endanger the lives of everyone around them would be as concerned with improving the quality of life in this country. While these gun fanatics are so worried about the government taking their guns, the government has taken everything else but their guns. As these idiots depend on bullets to protect them from the government, they have lost all other protections as corporations and the military control everything else. So let these gun owners live in blissful ignorance clutching their guns inside their bunkers until the happy day they die, it certainly won’t protect them from the government, or protect them from anything but other ignorant idiots with guns. In the twenty-first century only the completely mindless worry about guns, and thus our country will go the way of Rome and the Turkish Empire, as the ratio of idiots increases beyond America’s ability to sustain a civilized society.

  8. Actually the man Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell (D-Windsor) is having a discussion with is Ed Cutler ,founder and President of GOV and our official legislator Represenative

  9. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is affirmed in both the State and US Constitution, therefore this should be a non-issue.

Comments are closed.