Updated on June 11, 2019.
Gov. Phil Scott on Monday vetoed a 24-hour waiting period for handgun sales in Vermont and signed a bill protecting a woman’s right to an abortion.
The legislature passed S.169 to create a cooling-off period to reduce acts of impulsive gun violence, especially suicides. But Scott, citing a number of other gun restrictions he has signed, said he didn’t think the new bill hit the mark.
“With these measures in place, we must now prioritize strategies that address the underlying causes of violence and suicide,” Scott said in a statement. “I do not believe S.169 addresses these areas.”
Scott had until midnight Monday to either sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.
After the move, the family of Andrew Black released a statement blasting the decision. The 23-year-old Essex man shot and killed himself in December, hours after buying a gun.
“While we know this bill would not save everyone, by disrupting access to the most lethal method, it would have saved some,” Black’s parents, Rob and Alyssa Black, wrote in a statement. “This bill would have saved our son, it could have saved yours.”
The pair had lobbied legislators hard for the change and said they were “deeply disappointed” that Scott “went political.”
Legislators initially proposed a 48-hour waiting period to include all guns, but cut that period in half and removed rifles from the bill as a compromise.
California, Illinois and Rhode Island are among the states that have established waiting periods in law.
Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) released a statement lamenting the governor’s decision to block a “common sense step forward” on gun safety.
“Governor Scott’s veto is massively disappointing,” Ashe wrote.
Ashe pointed out that, while the governor proposed instead to tackle mental health, childhood poverty and addiction issues, those strategies “scarcely registered” in his recent budgets.
House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) issued a similar statement, noting that, unlike other forms of attempted suicide, 90 percent of attempts involving guns are successful.
“It is clear that the Governor’s disengaged approach to policy is not working for Vermont or for Vermonters,” Johnson wrote. “I hope to see him engage with lawmakers as legislation is developed next session.”
Because of the hurried way the general assembly adjourned this legislative session, lawmakers will not have a summer session to try to override any gubernatorial vetoes. Their next opportunity to do so will be when the legislature reconvenes in January.
The deadline for Scott to sign or veto another closely watched bill, H.57, was coming up Tuesday.
“Like many Vermonters, I have consistently supported a woman’s right to choose, which is why today I signed H.57 into law,” Scott wrote. “This legislation affirms what is already allowable in Vermont — protecting reproductive rights and ensuring those decisions remain between a woman and her health care provider.”
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“The prefatory clause is irrelevant to the second half.”
This interpretation is anything BUT self-evident. If the clause is really “irrelevant to the 2nd half,” why bother to include it at all? Were the framers paid by the word? Why add words that have no relevant meaning?
In fact, the founders were pretty good writers. Had they intended the two propositions to be totally independent, they could easily have framed the amendment that way: “A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This would still provoke the obvious question: why bring up the Militia AT ALL if they really intended the 2nd statement to articulate an unlimited right applicable to everyone?
Many of the framers were classically educated, meaning that they were quite familiar with Latins so-called “ablative absolute,” (http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classica…). The opening phrase of the 2nd amendment is a sterling example. For more, see //www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/whprax/w24-aa.html#eng.
The far more natural interpretation is that the amendment pertains NOT to individuals in their capacity as citizens, but rather as potential members of a “well-regulated militia” which, the founders thought it important to note, is “necessary to the security of a free State,” if there is to be no standing army.
Such an interpretation is consistent with the way all the terms are used elsewhere in the Constitution. It clearly interprets each word and phrase of the text, without making ANY further assumptions beyond the clearly stated meaning of the text.
Finally, if the founders believed that carrying firearms is “a natural, negative right,” they would not have bothered to add it to the Constitution. Instead, they thought it important to articulate the rights which otherwise might be ignored.
It’s also entirely irrelevant. The 2a only recognized a natural, negative right.
The people naturally have the right to defend their lives. The Constitution was from the people, granting the government a limited power.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution”
Even if the Framers only intended this to cover the militia, it still doesnt overrule your negative right to keep and bear arms. That exists separate from that sentence, which was tacked onto the Constitution by a bunch of worried gun nuts in the late seventeen hundreds.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
And yet you ignore how the phrase is written.
The prefatory clause is irrelevant to the second half.
The militia is of the citizens.
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/militia
Against a standing army? Me too!
Well regulated is exactly how I defined it.
The second half, the part that actually matters, states the people. The people’s right to keep (not some armory handout) and bear (carry, possess) arms (not just guns) shall not be infringed.
Shall not is pretty clear. Infringed is also an interesting choice of verbage.
“Doom” defines militia as “all able bodied men,” but provides no explanation for his departure from the usual definition.
Instead, look at the way the word is used elsewhere in the Constitution. Writers avoid using a word to mean two significantly different things in the same text, without explaining the difference.
“Militia” appears 4 times in the Constitution; “Doom”‘s definition clearly fails to explain any of them.
First, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” and then, 2nd: “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.”
Still clearer, 3rd, comes later in the same sentence: “reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.” (emphasis added) The 4th use makes the President “Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
Self evidently, “all able bodied men” are not necessarily disciplined (think, e.g., a mob). Merely calling a bunch of able bodied men together with no further discipline or training and without regard to character, intelligence or opinions, and expecting them to execute laws, suppress insurrections, etc. would be quite foolish. (Think e.g., gangs or the mafia)
In short, “Doom”‘s redefinition is totally inconsistent with the other uses of the word in the text of the Constitution.
Unsurprisingly, the traditional definition as “a MILITARY force that is raised from the civil population” makes perfect sense, and jibes quite nicely with the 2nd amendment’s further requirement that such a force be “well-regulated.”
Why does Vermont have a republican governor? Two reasons really. One is that Shumlin was not liked and did a poor job. The second is that outside of Chittenden county and a few other small pockets, Vermont is a very conservative state.
What, am I not allowed to comment?
Alas! I did leave, I was proud to. I Also explained several times why I left and why others are. I did promise to not give another dollar to the state of Vermont and I suppose seven days gets some ad revenue off me though.
Please read this as an observation and not as a criticism – but didn’t the commenter named ‘doom’ supposedly move out of Vermont several months ago, and proudly so? (as announced here in the comment section…just look at his/her past comments/history.) Maybe his body moved, but judging on the number of comments since said move, his mind clearly hasn’t. It’s like I always said…Vermont gets under your skin. You can leave Vermont, but it doesn’t leave you.
Not that Phil Scott cares about my opinion, but really? We’ve done enough on gun control? Rather I think he is thinking about his re-election campaign coming up next year, and figures the abortion bill signing will stop some of the bleeding the gun bill veto will cause. I hope his calculation is wrong. One more suicide, and the tide may turn.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries…
The data shows that our suicide rate is not abnormal, despite our access to and culture of firearms. The data given by proponents of the bill cited a timeline of a week or longer, making the 24 hour wait entirely irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence matters, and is proof that the bill has outcomes that are a horrible trade off.
I didn’t see a single comment in all these articles that cited Fox news, but saying that in a demeaning way only turns your argument into a sloppy ad hominem.
Why does Vermont have a Republican governor?