The House Judiciary Committee narrowly approved a major piece of gun legislation Wednesday. The bill would mandate background checks for all private gun sales, raise the gun purchasing age to 21, ban bump stocks that speed up the firing rate of guns and put a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
It passed the committee in a 6-5 vote, with all four Republicans on the panel and Rep. Chip Conquest (D-Newbury) opposing the legislation.
After the vote, Conquest explained that he supports parts of the bill, such as raising the gun buying age to 21 and a ban on bump stocks like those used in the Las Vegas shooting last year.
“Some of the provisions in there seem narrow and tailored to address particular issues,” Conquest said, adding that broader measures such as universal background checks and limits on magazine capacity would limit gun rights without substantially increasing public safety.
Two Republicans on the committee, Rep. Janssen Willhoit (R-St. Johnsbury) and Rep. Eileen Dickinson (R-St. Albans), voted in favor of portions of the bill but against the overall legislation.
Both voted for the bump stock ban and a provision in the underlying bill supported by Second Amendment advocates that would establish a legal method for police departments to get rid of guns they have in storage that aren’t evidence.
Before legislators left Montpelier for the Town Meeting Day break, the House passed a separate bill that would allow police to take guns away from the scene of an arrest for domestic violence. That legislation would also create a court process empowering police to take guns away when a judge deems a person to be an “extreme risk” to themselves or others. The Senate is reviewing that bill.
The Senate has already approved universal background checks and an increase to the age for gun purchases. Now that the House Judiciary Committee has added a bump stock ban and magazine capacity limits to that bill, it’s headed to the House floor for a vote expected Friday.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
We want to tell the 18-21 year olds that they can’t own a gun but will send them off to war. Does that mean that if a soldier is from Vermont that they can’t carry a gun in the military, or that because someone is only 20 and can live on their own and vote that they can’t buy a gun for hunting purposes? Double Standard?
s.55 is a badly written piece of legislation that will not solve the problem of young men acting out in a violent fashion. We as a society must find the root cause of the violence. If we do not solve this puzzle, no law prohibiting any device or tool will serve to eliminate future tragedy. I note that the Texas Bomber was a young man who shopped at Home Depot for his bomb making supplies. This bill if passed, will do nothing to restrict criminals such as the felon who recently opened fire on the streets of Burlington. This Felon was prohibited under current law from having a firearm. Criminals do not abide by firearms laws. I would say the first step might be taking these young men off of prescription medications that can cause erratic behavior. I say NO to s.55!
If I had an 18, 19, or 20 yo child, I would finance the legal battle for them to sue the state, for legislating away their constitutional rights. Actually, there should be a gun rights lawyer out there that would take the case pro bono. Age restrictions on firearm purchases for -legal adults- is unconstitutional. It’s just that simple.
Tiki, gun deaths is not a good stat. Over half are suicide. More than half of the remaining gun homicide is drug and gang related, most using handguns. None of which are legally owned.
Over 2/3rds of gun homicide use handguns. Almost none are with rifles.
Gun crime, gun homicide, homicide, and violent crime are all at historic lows. Mass shootings are even at a low.
The DOJ has all this info available. The FBI has slightly different numbers, but the trend is the same on all counts.
At the same time all these crimes are decreasing, NICS background checks are at historic highs, meaning there are massively more guns held by the public every month.
IF THE STATE OF VERMONT WANTS TO GO THROUGH WITH THIS LEGISLATION, THEN I WOULD HAVE TO DEMAND THAT EVERYONE IN THE STATE HAVE ADEQUATE POLICE COVERAGE (like within at least 15 minutes. But how could that happen?) I have lived all over this state. There are lots of places where police coverage isn’t guaranteed, and some coverage can take 45 minutes.
This is so incredibly short-sited and unnecessary in this state, of all states.
If you are worried about trump and all that is happening in this present world, how could you abdicate the right to defend yourself? Yes 10 rounds sounds like enough, but it won’t stop here. It is a slippery slope and we are starting to slide…
This is happening because of Scott’s lapse. Encourage him that he has support if he keeps it sane, some reasonable measures like; bump stock ban, maybe raise the age, definitely the domestic abuse situations (with good checks and balances), background checks. Fine,
but limitations of magazines, waiting periods…. Mass doesn’t even have a waiting period. It is grabbing too much this time through. Take steps, not leaps and bounds.
Governor Scott, if you read this know that you will have support as long as you don’t go too far. If you go too far you may get voted out and Vermont will take a RIGHT turn that it doesn’t need. Don’t invite this battle. Draw the line in the sand and let us know you can be reasonable.
Moderate this. PLEASE! Veto anything past a reasonable line. PLEASE!
I refuse to relinquish my right to keep and bear arms at a level of sophistication equal to any potential adversary.. Throwing my empty musket at my adversary is not an equal playing field. How come you people can’t see that?
Let’s all take a moment to congratulate Rep. Martin LaLonde for killing this gun control bill deader than disco with his over reach.
*golf clap*
Well done, Judiciary Committee! A majority of Vermonters back these common sense proposals, the absence of which contribute to 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year.
This is not the end. Much more regulation is needed.
Since the Constitution excludes infringement upon our citizens rights to bear arms, this legislation is entirely wrongheaded. Any state law that attempts to restrict the effectiveness of defensive weaponry owned by the public will be challenged in court, of course.
Instead, educating citizens on the responsibilities, safety, and recreational use of all arms would be constructive. A well regulated militia is not possible without a skilled population of gun owners. Regulating a militia means: to train proficient users to work as a group, a fighting force, to be effective against enemy forces.
Vermont suffers greatly from lack of leadership in this regard. We coddle snowflakes and seek to protect them through restrictions. No, make them excellent gun owners, marksmen, competitive sports shooters, and capable minutemen in cases of defense.
These people do not represent the majority of the peoples voices in this state. They go off their own thoughts and agendas. Everyone of them should be voted out of office in the next election.