A group of Vermont politicians is setting the stage to push anew for legislation that would mandate universal background checks on gun purchases.
They’re planning to rally August 4 on the steps of the Statehouse, said Senate Majority Leader Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden). He said that if he’s reelected this fall, he will introduce a bill next year to require universal background checks.
Democratic candidates for governor — Sue Minter, Matt Dunne and Peter Galbraith — have said they’ll attend, Baruth said. So have the three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor: Sen. David Zuckerman (P/D-Chittenden), Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington) and House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown), according to Baruth.
The rally is an indication that the debate over gun control — long considered off-limits in hunting-friendly Vermont — is shifting after a run of mass shootings across the country. Any legislation will likely face heavy opposition, however, and the issue is likely to come up in this year’s elections.
Last year, gun control advocates dropped plans to seek universal background checks after running into opposition.
Three years ago, Baruth withdrew legislation to ban assault-style weapons amid intense opposition. Now, he said, he thinks the state is ready to require background checks on private gun sales.
“It’s time for this very modest step,” he said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
These Anti-Constitutional cronies need to be shown that WE are stronger! We are united! We are unwavering in our way of life in Vermont! We will NOT bend! We will NOT compromise! We will NOT be bullied so those who fail to grasp our way of life can achieve the false sense of safety that all of their attempts to alter a working way of doing things RIGHT for more than 200 years! We need to be there as representatives of the true meaning of “Shall not be infringed”! And they might want to check their oath of office. The one in which they swear to uphold the Vermont Constitution. Read Article 16, pretty clear they are violating the oath!
when will legislators stop pushing this anti Vermont propaganda driven attempt to solve a problem we don’t have? gun owners stood for our rights when last we faced this agenda, w/it’s New York moneyed backers lies,..we will again. any politician behind these attempts will not find favor at the polls.
Actually, the push for Universal Background Checks really fell to pieces when one of the lobbyists accidentally admitted in a hearing that he couldn’t make any compromises without first checking with his out-of-state benefactors and puppet-masters.
This is people who moved here, wasting our legislative time and process by repeatedly pushing for policies at the behest of people who do not and never will live here, putting forth proposals that have failed everywhere they have been implemented, to solve a problem that we don’t have.
Any person going against their sworn oath of office and introduces legislation that goes against our constitution SHALL be charged with purgery.. We must insist our elected States attorney’s pursue these charges everytime this happens and it will end…otherwise we’ll have to battle every year. This imho is how we can stop this infringement.
Phil Baruth needs to go the way of Linda Waite-Simpson…….
It so boggles my mind that with all the ACTUAL problems Vermont has…all the problems that REALLY DO deserve time, attention and state resources…the only thing Baruth can come up with to seem relevant is to stage and push a make-believe problem in search of a solution. A make-believe problem that is being pushed for by out-of-state sources. Sources that have historically financially contributed to his campaign.
Yeah, nice to know your tax dollars are being wisely spent, isn’t it?
This guy has one seriously whackadoodle record of trying to control you: the gun owners of this state. I’m not kidding, if this guy has his way, he WOULD get rid of Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution and therefore everyone’s firearms, one small compromise at a time. He has the track record to prove that.
And note that he doesn’t have the courage to stage this little show on a weekend when people are off work. Trying to control the message perhaps, Phillip?
Well, I double-dog dare Baruth to reschedule this thing for a weekend day. Let’s make this a party.
You all say that this violates Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution, which says that the people have the right to bear arms. How does a background check take away that right?
Would you say that a convicted murderer should have the right, once free, to own a gun as well? Because by this reading of the Constitution, that seems to be the case…
“The rally is an indication that the debate over gun control — long considered off-limits in hunting-friendly Vermont — is shifting after a run of mass shootings across the country.”
Nothing has shifted, nothing has changed, except the ability of people to make dimwitted, arbitrary statements based on thin air. The rally is an indication that out of state money is in the pockets of Vermont’s politicians again and that those politicians apparently don’t have the capacity to understand that they never stood a chance in the past and they will never stand a chance in any future. Lose terribly three times but try try again… I know turtles that are smarter.
And isn’t this a wonderful diversion to divide the people & implant polarization coming up to the completely bogus elections. Time for the two party system of corporate governance to be put to the guillotine.
You’d think a group of self-proclaimed Constitutionalists would know the first four words of the second amendment: “A *WELL-REGULATED* militia….”
Apparently those legislators long to be unemployed. Baruch is already guaranteed to boot from other shenanigans.
Apparently those legislators crave unemployment. They need to get it through their thick skulls gun rights is the third rail, they touch it their time in the leg is over.
It is time for the people of Vermont to lead the way and show the rest of the US that we *can* all give up our guns. We can live without them and be free– free from the propaganda and fearmongering of right-wing extremists, free from domestic violence and suicide in our society, and free from the fear that made us buy guns in the first place. Let’s do it!
I have not hunted since I was a teenager decades ago but I do own guns and I for one do not intend to give up that right. VT has a history of hunting and owning guns with no issues. The issues we have had have been accidents and the idiots from out of state having a gun fight in Burlington over a woman. Us natives do not have those issues. As for background checks, I have no problem with background checks if they are the same for all, but ban guns, no, if you want to not live near guns than feel free to find a place that ban guns
Expand your visions!!.
You”re being constantly surveilled. You have given up all your secrets to Facebook. Zuckerberg owns all of your family photos. Children with cell phones can steal your ID and ruin you financially. The Russians can cut off your power with the flick of a switch, the Chinese can poison your entire food supply at the whim of a few. Drones the size of a dragonfly can dart you to death.
You have given it all up, except for the guns.
Marty Schneider
People don’t want background checks because they shouldn’t need to ask their government for permission to exercise there inalienable rights. It’s completely contrary to the intent of the 2nd amendment, the people having the ability to prevent their government from becoming oppressive, for the government to be able to keep a list of who we are & where we live as well as being able to arbitrarily deny our rights based on all kinds of contrived concerns. Look at all the people, including four year old children, who are wrongly on the terrorist watch list, and have virtually no recourse at all to get off it. Do the reporters here at Seven Days require permits & permission to exercise their 1st amendment rights? Are there any other constitutional rights people need specific permission to enjoy?
And to your murderer fantasy; If a murderer has served his time and earned his freedom, why should he, if he is ok enough to return to society, not have earned back all his rights? If he isn’t ok to own a gun, why is he being released in the first place?
If you think this Country is divided now start messing with our second amendment right to protect ourselves and see what happens. Five National Agencies have admitted that Syrian Refugees can not be vetted and Vermont and Rutland wants to bring them in here. With wacos in Washington and MontP driving the Country into all kinds of risks to us and drive our personal safety into the ground with more care for a moon bat agenda than our personal safety. Why do you need to ask why we need guns that shoot more than one bullet ? Because we face as much threat from internal idiots as we do global risks. Use the brains that God gave you people !
‘ You’d think a group of self-proclaimed Constitutionalists would know the first four words of the second amendment: “A *WELL-REGULATED* militia….” ‘
Uhm…. hey, Tiki Archambeau?
You write that as if you think people other than yourself are idiots. In the verbiage of the day when the 2nd was added into the Constitution, “A Well Regulated militia…”
…actually meant…
‘ With the best quality equipment, well maintained… ‘
Many of the colonists did have some of the best equipment of the day, owned and brought in by the people themselves (yes, including some privately owned artillery) and knew the value of making sure that kind of thing was formalized into national law. All to make sure another tyrannical government wouldn’t try to abuse the masses again. BTW, remember that the shooting war did start over gun control.
At this point, everyone already knows this. Please try to keep up.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.…
FreedomToThink
A) The 2nd amendment clearly calls for a “well-regulated militia.” What you’re advocating for is an unregulated militia. That would be unconstitutional. I have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Convicted murderers who are prone to violence, along with mentally unstable people, are likely to infringe on my right to life if they own a gun. It would clearly be unconstitutional to allow them to possess one.
If you possess a social security card then the government already has you in a database. That’s the price you pay for living in a society. You get benefits… roads, firetrucks, parks, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, etc…. and in return you are expected to be recorded, pay taxes, respect others rights. If you don’t like it, move into the mountains and don’t use public resources. But, then, again, you would still be breathing the clean air that the government regulates and keeps clean for you.
B) Your fantasy of everyone (the mentally ill, convicts, children) being able to own a gun sounds very very dangerous. I don’t want to be walking down Main Street, knowing that there was a good chance the paranoid schizophrenic man who’s seeing phantom people has a gun ready to shoot. I don’t want my children living in a world where their 10-year-old classmates come to school armed and ready to shoot in event of a petty argument. It seems that’s what you’re advocating for, and it’s, frankly, scary.
FreedomToThink
Also, you say that 4-year-olds who are mistakenly put on the terror watch list have no recourse for getting off it?! Come on. There’s obviously a process for getting off of it, and, in that situation, I would think it would be pretty rapid. That statement is pure government paranoia. If that’s your thinking, maybe you should move to a country without government, like Somalia.
Marty Schneider:
“The 2nd amendment clearly calls for a “well-regulated militia.” What you’re advocating for is an unregulated militia. That would be unconstitutional. I have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Convicted murderers who are prone to violence, along with mentally unstable people, are likely to infringe on my right to life if they own a gun. It would clearly be unconstitutional to allow them to possess one.”
Marty Schneider, please read my earlier post on the meaning of “A well regulated militia…” according to the verbiage of the day it was added to the Constitution.
THIS IS NOT MY OWN INTERPRETATION…IT IS AN HISTORICAL FACT that the “A well regulated militia…” phrase, ACCORDING TO THE VERBIAGE OF THE DAY, actually means ‘ With the best quality equipment, well maintained… ‘
I’m sorry about the inconvenient truth but the phrase DID NOT originally intend anything about legislating firearms; quite the opposite. It was about keeping good quality equipment and in good working order to take up arms against a tyranical government. Please don’t try to rewrite the Constitution to your personal beliefs.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.…
Marty Schneider:
You also write that getting off a terror watch list is easy and rapid. Uhm…no. It is an EXTREMELY difficult process. You don’t simply fill out some form to fix the problem. This isn’t just a bad credit glitch…the list is about people who are being suspected of being terrorists. And that’s if you can even find out that you’re on it to begin with. And, yes, children have been found on it, as have common people, including famous politicians. Never mind that it completely foregoes any kind of due process or anything.
I get such a kick out of gun control advocates who think they’ve come up with such a hot idea regarding attaching the terror watch list to background checks. Do you realize just how dangerous a thing that is?
There is a reason terror watch lists are secret: the feds don’t want to alert the bad guys to the fact they are being investigated. So, with this bright idea, any would-be terrorist can simply walk into any gun shop (even if its just Walmart) and by simply going through the process of purchasing a firearm (or just a box of ammo in some states), and seeing if they clear the background check, they can find out whether they are currently being investigated by the feds. With that information, they now know enough to alert their network that they’ve been made, go underground, adjust their plans accordingly and/or move up their plans for an attack.
But, yeah… you gun control folks have all the answers.
Soap Box
If you’re going to use the verbiage of the day, you might as well go all in. Can’t have the best of both worlds.
What was the militia of the day? It was a team of men, proven to have no Loyalist inclinations, trained to act professionally. George Washington himself, upon assuming command of the Continental Army (which in 1775 was comprised entirely of militia), said, “All the General Officers agree that no Dependence can be put on the Militia for a Continuance in Camp, or Regularity and Discipline during the short time they may stay.” He would later say, “To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.”
Additionally, the Constitution itself gives Congress considerable powers over the Militia.
Article One
Section 8
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Soap Box
I agree with you that the Terror Watch list is a very flawed system. I don’t agree it should be used for background checks, and it seems, as a whole, pretty bad. It my view, though, it’s a whole separate entity and discussion.
Marty Schneider:
” I agree with you that the Terror Watch list is a very flawed system. I don’t agree it should be used for background checks, and it seems, as a whole, pretty bad. It my view, though, it’s a whole separate entity and discussion. “
Unfortunately it’s more than just flawed, Marty. It’s downright dangerous. And each and every one of the politicians mentioned in that article above is going to blindly support it. Either they don’t think…are willing to govern through knee jerk reactions…or are just pandering to the party line, who knows. In any case, I would stay away from each and every one of them, even if you are a Democrat.
Vermont has already tried each and every one of their style of thinking and has suffered for it. Our economy, job situation, drug problem and taxation begs for a complete change. We do have other choices and believe me, I’m not talking from some kind of Republican party line. I don’t have any party affiliation at all but the current super-majority has been a disaster and the folks above promise even more extreme versions of the same. I have really and honestly looked at the platforms of Minter, Dunne and Galbraith and have come away scared to death. I promise you, each of them will economically destroy Vermont. Baruth has always been a bit whakadoodle and I’m sure he’s going to be history this time around anyway.
At the very least, whether right or left, please research these people OBJECTIVELY. You may feel just as scared as I do.
Thank you for the discussion, Marty. I enjoyed it. I just wish Seven Days would redo this comments section to support a better thread-based discussion system.
Soap Box:
It doesn’t surprise me that you are so well versed in colonialism. That’s the last time period you can cite with a significant legal development to a 200-year-old law (aside from the recent far-right SCOTUS decision in Heller). Meanwhile, the rest of the world has evolved. Technology has changed. And so should our gun laws. “Try and keep up”…. indeed.
“A Well Regulated militia…” …actually meant… ‘ With the best quality equipment, well maintained… ‘
You say that like it’s fact. It isn’t. It’s nothing more than your interpretation. One borrowed from a time before electricity was invented.
It’s rather simple: we’ve had enough of the social experiment pretending like “the right to bear arms” are the only words in the Second Amendment. 30,000 gun deaths – over 100,000 shootings – each year attest to that. The time is now to embrace the “well-regulated” part. Otherwise known as the part the rest of the world knew generations ago and have the stats to prove it.
Tiki Archambeau:
“…Meanwhile, the rest of the world has evolved. Technology has changed. And so should our gun laws….”
Interesting point, Tiki. Let me ask you something, though. What do you think about the First Amendment? It’s over two hundred years old itself.
Back when it was ratified, technology regarding the free speech portion of that amendment was limited to quill pens and the Franklin printing press. Was freedom of communication dangerous back then? Well, many a person in power was certainly afraid of an informed population. A skilled propagandist could, in fact, topple governments.
Since then, technology has evolved to a level our founding fathers could never have imagined. In fact, technology has given us, what in the wrong hands, is certainly the deadliest weapon ever unleashed on humanity: the internet.
You could give a psychotic terrorist a fully loaded full-auto rifle, put him in a room filled with world leaders and he would STILL NOT BE as dangerous as a capable terrorist in a basement somewhere with a computer and internet connection.
How many attempts at cyber-crime did you experience in your email inbox this morning? That’s just the beginning. In the wrong hands, an evil person can hack into your bank account or bring down any corporation from anywhere in the world. A disturbed person can cyber-bully a teenager into committing suicide. And a nationally-sponsored individual can, from a simple internet connection in some dark basement, bring down a country’s power grid, killing millions.
So, knowing how dangerous a simple 1st Amendment-backed internet connection can be, let me ask you this, Tiki:
Are you in support of banning, or at least severely legislating, public use of the internet? Do we need background checks before we are allowed to touch a keyboard?
I really love how you gun phobic people take the second amendment and relentlessly cherry pick the part of it you can best twist to mean what you need it to mean, for your particular agenda and conveniently leave out the rest. Your smug addition of condescension in the way you do it just speaks volumes to your character and why we will never, ever let you win this fight. It’s would-be dictators like you that we need to stay vigilant against.
So, how about we use the rest of the words and put your four cherry picked ones in context.
A well regulated militia, (been discussed) being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, (the part about keeping government in check) the right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms, (people, not military, not militia, not police, not those appointed by the government, PEOPLE) shall not be infringed. (infringed as defined by Websters; • act so as to limit or undermine, i.e. – hands off, period!!!)
The people, not the militia, have a right to keep & bear arms and that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Freedom to Think:
Well said (the first thumbs up in your latest post is from me, BTW). Let me add one more that is even more plain and simple. It’s called Article 16 of the VERMONT Constitution. It goes like this:
“Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State–and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/co…
Canda is next door to us they have as many guns per 1000 people as we do . They hunt they target pratice . BUT THEY HAVE WAY LESS DeATHS THAN WE DO . WHY? Because they have laws that make sense . It’s not out of state folks it’s poorly educated in state ground hogs . The odds are not in there favor but they don’t want to hear it . It’s called cognitive disonace , gas lighting and pedagogy of the oppressed .
The Odds are 31 to 1 that’s to protect yourself . Your 31 times more likely to shot yourself your wife your husband your child or someone you did not want shot then protect yourself . Every single year people who I have to care for in mental health have been effected by guns . I don’t want that job put me out of work .
Every single gun owner and non gun owner most know by now that if you leave a person alone with a rope or pills or a knife . They very rarely kill themselves but guns work and they don’t sell them with smart pills . More and more gun owners are leaving the NRA and less and and lees folks are hunting . But the reason they leave the NRA they tell me I don’t ask them they tell me . Is they say it’s ” gone over the edge.
Jefferson said ” you would not keep your child in the same cloths ” meaning that the rules and laws most change with the times . We don’t keep slaves . We could have guns that don’t let anyone but the owner shoot it . I work in mental health . Teens get guns and kill themselves more times than I would like to report . Drug dealers trade guns for drugs . How do I know ? Sometimes I hear it everyday . Stop the killing stop it now . Stop showing folks from out of state that you are stupid .
Thad:
I think you basically answered your own question: it’s all about mental health, not the tool used. People commit suicide in many different ways and gun-related suicide is way at the bottom here in Vermont. People here take their own life in many different ways, including jumping off bridges. You need to fix the root cause (the mental state of mind) and the symptom (the methodology) will naturally take care of itself.
And, no, changing laws just for the sake of changing laws is just stupid. Don’t try to fix something that ain’t broke. In Vermont we have an over 200-year track record of being either the safest or second safest state in the country as it relates to firearm related deaths. And that is as per the FBI website which offers UNBIASED stats on these kind of things. Please check them out.
All of the politicians mentioned in the article above want to change the Vermont laws to be similar to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC or New Jersey. All of those places have some of the most strictest gun laws in the country yet are the most dangerous places to be. They all use biased sources to back up their claims (usually from some Michael Bloomberg owned media property).
Tell me, Thad, crime-wise, where would you rather live, Vermont or New Jersey?
I bet you answered Vermont, right? So please tell those idiots in that article up there to stop trying to ‘Jersey Vermont with gun laws. Stop screwing with the great system we already have here. What they’re doing is trying to add laws that will make things far more dangerous here. And please tell them all to stop taking out-of-state money and influence regarding gun control. It’s disgusting.