Without a word of debate, the Senate voted Thursday to go along with changes the House made to a gun-control bill and send the controversial measure directly to the governor.
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Sears (D-Bennington) was blunt that he wanted to avoid prolonging a difficult debate. “It’s a very emotional, very difficult issue,” Sears said. “I think people would just as soon move on.”
Gov. Peter Shumlin signaled Thursday that he’s likely to sign the bill, S. 141, though he didn’t firmly commit.
“The governor recognizes that the bill is a shadow of the original proposal he objected to and now goes a long way toward meeting reasonable concerns on both sides of this debate. But as usual, he will review the final bill after we have received it,” Shumlin spokesman Scott Coriell said in a written statement.
For all the controversy the bill has generated on social media among gun-rights activists, the governor has not been flooded with calls on the issue since the bill passed the House. Coriell said the governor’s office has received 82 calls and emails against the bill and 71 for it this week.
The bill passed the Senate by a 20-8 vote, and in the House by an 80-62 vote.
In order to avoid sending it to a conference committee, which would have required another vote on the bill in the House, the Senate had to agree to changes that the House made. The biggest of those was that the House removed an 18-month waiting period for those released from mental health custody to regain the right to possess firearms.
Before the full Senate voted, the Senate Judiciary Committee debated whether to go along with the House changes. Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) wanted to reinstate the 18-month waiting period. He lost by a 4-1 vote of the committee.
“If we concur, it’s all over,” Sears said, arguing that there will effectively be at least a six-month waiting period for mental health cases if a prosecutor intervenes.
New lobbyist disclosure forms filed this week with the Secretary of State’s Office show that supporters and opponents spent thousands of dollars on the cause this year.
Gun Sense Vermont, which advocated for the bill, spent $41,431 on lobbying, $9,401 on advertising and $947 on expenses.
The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs spent $15,000 on lobbying and $224 in expenses. The group successfully fought the 18-month waiting period and earlier provisions that would have required background checks for all gun sales.
The National Rifle Association, which also fought the bill, spent $12,071 on lobbying.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
This travesty needs to end! We need NO such legislation! Flatlanders come here and for what we are and how we live. For our beauty, our culture, our straight forward way of doing things. Seem they forget to leave behind their own twisted set of baggage. Then try to make us what they left behind. Hmmmmm, passin strange.
I’m still trying to figure out what the objection is to restricting access to guns for violent felons and the mentally ill. Do gun advocates think those individuals should have the unfettered right to gun access, or is it the fact that this may be a step toward greater restrictions on responsible gun owners?
stellaquarta, in addition to the obvious mental health ramifications that the bill will create, I am opposed to S.141 because it would lessen the sentence for a prohibited person in possession of a firearm defined by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). According to 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) a sentence of up to 10 years is prescribed for this offence and yet S.141 would bring the sentence down to no more than 2 years taking a felony and turning it into a misdemeanor. Offering up a lesser penalty is counter productive if the claim is an effort to reduce prohibited persons in possession of firearms and already near non-existent violent crime with firearms in Vermont. Creating a state law that interferes with existing federal law is not an answer.
So the objection is that part of the proposed law is redundant because it’s already a federal crime, and so why pass a state law that criminalizes the same conduct but imposes a different penalty? I can see that argument., but I don’t really know why it’s bad to criminalize something on both the state and federal level with different penalties. A lot of crimes are like that (drugs, fraud, sex crimes, etc.)
Stellaquarta, the objection is that if we are concerned about violent felons and the mentally ill getting their hands on guns, or any other tool that could be used dangerously then the only way to prevent this from happening is to remove said person from free society, or at least require them to be constantly supervised.
We’ve allowed the government to adbicate it’s responsibility to keep us safe and secure by restricting the freedom of those who would do us harm, and are instead allowing it to shift the burden to us – the law-abiding citizens. Those government officials who do this must (and will) be voted out of office.
what an outright falsehood! somebody needs to learn how to do some serious fact checking, vet these articles better before printing them.
7,000 letters delivered to the statehouse on April 10th, is hardly nothing.
We have been going to there, calling, emailing and every other way to contact our Senators, Representatives and the Governor to voice our disapproval, and this story is so disingenuous it is insulting to the thousands of Vermonters who you are calling liars.
stellaquarta – Don’t forget this legislation already started out as something bigger and more restrictive and completely without good reason. So far as what is left of this bill, if you applied the changes to any of the past crimes with guns, the chance is slim to none that it would have made any difference at all. This bill is predominantly political posturing by groups from outside Vermont, peddling influence and playing party politics with our lives.
To answer your question directly; No, no law abiding gun owner in his/her right mind wants guns in the hands of violent people but we are getting tired of paying the price of other peoples misdeeds & tired of the divisiveness these bill bring about in our communities and statehouse, again from mostly outside groups and internal soap box tyrants.