Anako Lumumba tried to protect herself from an abusive ex, her brother told Vermont lawmakers on Wednesday. “But the system wasn’t enough to take the guns away from the guy,” Adolphe Lumumba said.
In May 2018, police have alleged, Leroy Headley shot Anako to death in the South Burlington home they once shared. She had repeatedly reported his threatening behavior to police — twice in the week before she was killed — but Headley still had legal access to firearms.
Reps. Maxine Grad (D-Moretown) and Martin LaLonde (D-South Burlington) are seeking to prevent such tragedies. The chair and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee have introduced legislation that would require subjects of a restraining order to surrender their firearms. Their bill, H.610, would also expand the state’s new “red flag law” to allow family and household members — not just law enforcement officials — to seek extreme risk protection orders, which allow for the temporary confiscation of firearms from those deemed dangerous.
Adolphe Lumumba told their committee that the bill might have helped Anako.
“I’m not here today to save my sister, but I know there’s other people out there who can be saved by this,” he said. “This is something my sister would have wanted, too.”
The measure is one of several firearms-related bills lawmakers are considering this session.
Sen. Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden) has introduced legislation that would prohibit the possession of semiautomatic weapons in certain public spaces, such as government buildings, churches, hospitals, parks, restaurants, concert venues and colleges. The bill, S.259, is sponsored by 14 of the Senate’s 30 members, suggesting it may have majority support.
“We should have some commonsense limitations on where you can carry guns specifically designed to kill large numbers of people,” Baruth said. “That is, you can’t carry them into places where there are large numbers of people.”
The Democratic legislature is also trying to determine what to do about Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s veto last session of a bill requiring a 24-hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. Legislators could attempt to override Scott’s veto, but that would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers. While 20 senators backed the measure, S.169, last session, only 82 of 150 members of the House did.
“I’m not sure we have the votes to override,” Grad conceded.
Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he’s hoping to allay Scott’s concern that there is insufficient evidence to show that a 24-hour waiting period would reduce the state’s suicide and homicide rates. To that end, Senate leaders have invited two prominent Harvard Business School professors who have researched the question to testify next week.
“I think what we should do is work with the administration and find a path,” Sears said. “And I’m willing to do that.”
If that fails, Baruth plans to push for a waiting period of 48 hours, arguing that the research is even stronger that longer waiting periods are effective. “In that sense, we are taking him at his word,” Baruth said of the governor.
During a break from testimony in her committee Wednesday, Grad said she planned to focus on advancing her own bill, H.610.
“Domestic violence-related homicides are preventable,” she said. “This would give survivors of domestic violence, law enforcement, the court, family, community members the tools that they don’t have now to reduce access to firearms.”
In addition to the restraining order and extreme risk protection order provisions, Grad and LaLonde’s bill would close what’s known as the “Charleston loophole.” Under federal law, if a criminal background check is not completed within three days, a gun dealer may proceed with a sale. That allowed the perpetrator of a 2015 church shooting in Charleston, S.C., to purchase a gun even though he should not have been permitted to do so.
Last year’s vetoed waiting-period bill also sought to close the so-called loophole by prohibiting gun sales without a completed background check. Grad said she included the same provision in her new bill because she believes it would also save lives. “For me, this is a domestic violence, homicide prevention bill,” she said. “So they’re all related.”
During Wednesday’s hearing, several witnesses raised objections to the legislation.
South Burlington Police Chief Shawn Burke said his own department could handle the increased workload that would come with the mandatory seizure of guns from those served with restraining orders. “But that’s not the case around the state,” he said. “Operationally, this would be a huge lift for law enforcement in the state.”
Chief Superior Judge Brian Grearson similarly warned that requests for warrants and extreme risk protection orders could strain the courts — particularly after hours, when such requests are handled by lower-level personnel.
Gun-rights advocates, meanwhile, said the legislation would restrict their rights and make them less safe. Ed Cutler, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, said that closing the Charleston loophole could make it difficult to quickly obtain a firearm in order to ward off members of the animal kingdom.
“In Vermont, the crime rate is extremely low. The murder rate is almost nonexistent,” he said. “But we have wild animals. We had a bunch of years ago a big rabies epidemic.”
Cutler argued that the state’s new composting rules might compound the threat.
“Bears in the spring are really hungry, and bears with cubs are very protective,” he said. “You go out to that compost pile with a bear problem and you don’t have a firearm, you need to get one just to defend yourself. If you can’t [pass a background check in] three days, you can’t defend yourself against that bear.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Good job Seven Days on once again completely failing to represent the conservative viewpoint.
If a gun sale cannot proceed without the successful completion of a background check, than politicians merely have to cut funding for them. This would make any and all gun sales illegal, effectively providing politicians with a back door route to commit massive violations of our civil rights without any kind of oversight.
The compromise was that background checks would be required, but if the government failed to complete one in a timely fashion the sale would proceed as planned. This stems from the American notion of innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof lies with the government to prove that someone is high-risk.
But at least you threw in a pity quote at the end of this article about how we need to protect ourselves from bears. Shame on Paul Heintz for failing to demonstrate any kind of journalistic integrity, and shame on Seven Days for providing him a platform to do so.
I would much prefer they spend some time re-working the onerous property taxes, the excessive spending, the incredibly expensive school system, and finding a way other than paying people to move here to attract jobs and employers. How about spending some time on those (actual) problems?
We just got nailed with a 12% health insurance increase (if I have my facts straight) right after giving OneCare, an “Accountable Cost Organization” over a BILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000,000.00) with basically no accounting for how they’re going to spend the 60% increase over 2019. How about spending some time on that (actual) problem?
We have a prison system that appears to be so poorly run that people are being released early, and top officials are being shown the door. How about spending some time on that (actual) problem?
We have some real, terrifically difficult problems that threaten the entire state. But yes, please fritter away your time trying to subvert the Constitutions of both the United States and Vermont to get your names in the paper. Then, the gun-rights organizations will challenge the laws in court (which will cost the state money), and as often happens, your new laws are nullified. But hey, you got your names in the press. Yay you.
And you want to vote yourselves a pay raise?
These twits that have the nerve to take tax dollars as compensation for being “representatives” of the people need to familiarize themselves with “disparity of force”. For those unfamiliar, it’s the deadly force that no amount of legislation can take away. Taking this thugs gun would not have prevented him from harming or killing this victim. But waiting periods or other restrictions WOULD prevent a would-be victim from obtaining the means to defend themselves (from someone capable of harming or killing them with their bare hands). This legislation is evil, as are it’s proponents. And counterproductive to the goal.
“I would much prefer they spend some time re-working the onerous property taxes, the excessive spending, the incredibly expensive school system, and finding a way other than paying people to move here to attract jobs and employers. How about spending some time on those (actual) problems?”
Lower property taxes = give people more money to make Vermont more attractive
Lower excessive spending = give people more money to make Vermont more attractive
Make education cheaper = give people more money to make Vermont more attractive
Don’t pay people to come here = don’t give people more money to make Vermont more attractive
Super consistent.
These representatives ARE representing their constituents, just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean that they are misrepresenting those who voted for them. If you don’t like it then get involved and get someone elected who you think will do a better job. And before you attack me,know that I am a 3rd generation native Vermonter and gun owner.
The fact that the lawmakers are taking testimony from two Harvard Law Professors who have studied this issue is all I needed to hear. Regardless of what it’s about studies are always flawed or manipulated. Look no further than the FDA one week a new drug is the cure all the next year every lawyer in the country is part of a lawsuit settlement.
I suggest people just start using their common sense.
Well, I’m sure glad there are some experts on here to tell us how it is. Why don’t they run for office?
Vermont gun control? Are the democrats crazy? Vermont is the envy of every other state. Only a nut would limit ownership in Vermont. Clearly, democrats don’t have a clue.
I’m really tired of hearing how wonderful Vermont’s homicide rates are compared to other states. Compared to more than 50 other countries in the world, Vermont’s rates are appalling.
Please go to //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate and arrange the columns from lowest to highest rate. You’ll find that Vermont’s rate (1.6) (//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state) would put us in a tie for 60th place, after, to cite just a few examples Japan, Austria, Norway, Palestine (!), Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, China, Poland, Czech Republic and Italy, all of which have murder rates that are less than 1/2 of Vermont’s.
The real question is whether the unwanted side-effects of passing this law are worse than the hoped-for savings of life.
Gun laws promoted by the most ignorant lawmakers on the subject of firearms. Yes, I’m talking about Baruth and LaLonde. Will you be able to have a hunting rifle in your car to mail a letter at the PO, or to pick your kid at school, or to even drive by the school, or the church, or to park at the local eatery? Loaded rifles are illegal to carry in a car, last I knew.
Now, the Baruth and LaLonde gang still think a semi-automatic firearm is akin to a nuclear weapon. This alone should give you a hint at their wisdom. Banning high volume magazines without serial numbers proves their ignorance.
Well officer, I bought this before the ban. Oh, OK be on your way.
John- constitutional rights are unwanted side effects to be traded for hopes?
Restrict us from lawfully carrying our personal protection in all those places, so only the criminals are armed.
F’n brilliant.
Chip…chip…chip…this is how you lose your rights one slice at a time. Thanks Phil!
“Well, I’m sure glad there are some experts on here to tell us how it is. Why don’t they run for office?”
Because it’s easier for them to whine and b**** on a message board or FaceBook than to actually get involved and do their civic duty.
Many thanks to these legislative leaders for their bravery in the face of unhinged far-right hatred to do what’s right.
It is pure fantasy to continue believing the NRA narrative that any law limiting access to any firearm is unconstitutional. It’s the same logic that says:
“one week a new drug is the cure all the next year every lawyer in the country is part of a lawsuit settlement.”
Or…
“If you can’t [pass a background check in] three days, you can’t defend yourself against that bear.”
Only on planet NRA does one defend the opioid epidemic, or elevate a .0001% event over domestic abuse.
To JohnGreenberg first of all Wikipedia is crap if you do your research you can see anyone can add or Change information as they want. Next you need to see a break down of statistics Because suicide usually gets mixed in with stats.. and why are you comparing states to country’s?? Here’s a quote from Burlington free press,” Vermont is the safest state in the country with a violent crime rate of 118 incidents per 100,000 state residents. also look at FBI data.
HELL NO there not representing anyone other than the agenda they want!! when the public showed up and out numbered 8 to1 At least against new gun laws if they represented the people they wouldn’t have passed any!!!!
Also I can tell you people Democrat’s are filling Montpelier on there own we are not voting them in!! Do some research on Voting statistics and percentages of Votes it took me less than an hour to figure out what’s going on!!! But it will be exposed soon and many will see!!
What are you talking about you make no sense. Theres also no mention of the head of house judiciary listening to all her people talk but when its the gun owners side. She packs up and leaves after one minute!! To go on vacation, did you folks just get back in session??
first of all Wikipedia is no good if you do your research you can see anyone can add or Change information as they want. Next you need to see a break down of statistics Because suicide usually gets mixed in with stats.. and why are you comparing states to country’s?? Here’s a quote from Burlington free press,” Vermont is the safest state in the country with a violent crime rate of 118 incidents per 100,000 state residents. also look at FBI data.
NO!! there not representing anyone other than the agenda they want!! when the public showed up and out numbered 8 to1 At least, against new gun laws if they represented the people they wouldn’t have passed any!!!!
Also I can tell you people Democrat’s are filling Montpelier on there own we are not voting them in!! Do some research on Voting statistics and percentages of Votes it took me less than an hour to figure out what’s going on!!! But it will be exposed soon and many will see!!
The real story is how baruth is head of education committee and the school he works at gets disporportate funding compared to other state colleges. Have heard tell he is a rock star with the dean because of it…
Gun rights is not just a “Conservative” movement.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akwv4k/…
ANTIFA even knows it is a right like any other and that most gun control laws target minorities and are racist in nature.
The REAL concern here should be. Why do we as Americans have to petition for the Constitutional Right to own a firearm. No other right is ever petitioned for. We need to stand up to the local a federal governments and say WHAT GIVES!! Any politician who has to swear to an oath the day they take office should immediately
be able to be removed from said office should they go against the Constitution. And yes this does includes the 2nd admendment. Thank God for Trump. Greg
Replies to “rockjocky:”
1) If you disagree with the Wikipedia numbers, feel free to cite a source you consider more accurate. In this particular case, the table cites its sources for the statistics provided. If you don’t like them either, provide better statistics and tell us why they’re better.
2) The statistics I cited were for firearm deaths, which include homicide, suicide and accidental deaths from firearms. This is a discussion about regulating firearms, which cause all 3. If you want statistics on just homicides, they’re certainly available and change little concerning Vermont’s ranking when compared to much of the rest of the world. Surely, you don’t want to compare suicide rates, because Vermont’s are pretty high.
3) Why would I NOT compare Vermont to the rest of the world? We aren’t part of this planet? The comparison is apt because other countries have different firearm laws, often resulting in FAR fewer deaths. Vermont is not an island.
To those resurrecting the tired argument about constitutional rights, there isn’t a court in the US which has ever ruled that individuals have unlimited rights to bear firearms. The Heller decision, which first applied the 2nd amendment to individuals by waving away the part about “a well-regulated militia,” was quite clear on this point: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
To Yvonne Royce:
The first amendment provides for ” the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” but many localities require citizens to petition to exercise the right, and courts have recognized that in doing so, they remain within the Constitutional framework.
The 4th Amendment protects us from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” but in order to enforce it, individuals must PETITION a court to grant habeas corpus.
Two examples off the top of my head. I’m sure there are others.
The only real “rabies” threat we have in Vermont is from the gun nuts and Right Wing Trump supporters. They are totally infected.