At a town hall meeting in Milton Tuesday evening, Vermont House leaders got plenty of feedback about their efforts to prevent gun violence. Most of those in attendance said they don’t like the political shift in Montpelier that led both the House and Senate to pass gun-control legislation last week.
“It’s a done deal, as far as I can see,” said Lee Morgan, who said the legislature plans to force such measures through without listening to citizen feedback.
Morgan said the bills would get approval from Gov. Phil Scott, who he called “Governor Benedict Arnold” in a reference to the infamous Revolutionary War traitor. Many pro-gun speakers went out of their way to slam Scott for his recent reversal on guns, which the governor has said came about as he read an affidavit related to a recently foiled school shooting plot in Fair Haven.
House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) and Minority Leader Don Turner (R-Milton) listened quietly alongside Rep. Ben Joseph (D-North Hero) and Rep. Chris Mattos (R-Milton) on the stage in the Milton High School auditorium as speakers aired their views for an hour and a half.
About 50 people attended the meeting, including a small group of Milton High School students who opted to attend the town hall instead of a basketball game, the sounds of which echoed from down the hall.
The speakers, most of whom were middle-aged men, outlined a wide range of societal problems other than guns that have led to the recent surge in mass shootings. They also offered solutions for school safety to the politicians, who, the speakers said, are already in the process of betraying the public.
“I want to say shame on Governor Scott,” said Ed Gallo, of Richmond. He suggested Scott’s stance doesn’t honor Vermonters’ right to defend themselves with guns.
“It’s kind of convenient because he’s got an armed body guard that walks around with him,” Gallo said.
Gallo recalled growing up in Vermont, when kids would bring their deer rifles to school. He said the vice principal used to go out in the parking lot to admire students’ guns. It wasn’t seen as a danger, Gallo said, insisting that legislation controlling access to guns will not make students safer.
“I want to say shame on the Vermont legislature,” he said. “Shame on you.”
Lee Morgan’s nephew, Michael, acknowledged that an extremely small portion of the population uses guns “in a demonic nature to kill fellow humans needlessly.” The sudden focus on guns, he said, is a result of media “whipping the American populace into a frenzy about these ‘evil guns.’”
The younger Morgan was the first of many speakers to describe places of learning in military terms.
“Schools have been identified as soft targets by these abhorrent individuals,” he said, suggesting that placing armed guards at schools would “put these thugs on notice that our schools are no longer easy targets.”
Morgan said the focus on controlling guns is misguided, and the schools need to be “hardened,” or fortified, to protect against would-be shooters.
“If guns kill people, why send people with guns to war?” he said. “Why not send just the guns?” Much of the crowd erupted in applause.
The roughly half-dozen Milton High School students at the meeting didn’t applaud. They sat silently for most of the town hall as they listened to the speakers. Near the end, some of them got a turn with the microphone.
“Guns in school don’t make me feel safe,” said Ari Randall, a Milton High School student who doesn’t believe a “good guy with a gun” will stop a shooter.
“No one is that powerful and more people dying isn’t going to solve our problems,” Randall said.
Caitlyn Lamotte, a senior at the high school, said she respects the right to own guns for hunting but wants lawmakers to limit access to weapons capable of — and designed for — killing and maiming many people in a short time.
“That’s not fair to me,” she said, gesturing to the wider audience, “that because you guys want an AR-15, I’ve gotta die?”
Lamotte then turned to the lawmakers on stage.
“Please. I beg you,” she said. “This shouldn’t even be a question. I want to live.”
Milton superintendent Ann Bradshaw spoke up after the students. She responded to suggestions from other speakers that lawmakers help “harden” the schools with armed guards and other security measures.
“Yes, we could harden our schools,” she said, “But I just wonder, as I visualize Sandy Hook and the first graders in the corner, and the shooter walked in with an automatic rifle and just slaughtered them like lambs—”
She stopped suddenly because a man in the crowd shouted to correct her that the gun used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School was, in fact, semiautomatic. Bradshaw skipped to her point: “You have the right to bear arms, yes, but do people need automatic and semiautomatic weapons?”
On stage, the four representatives made a point to do more listening than talking. They refused when pressed by a member of the audience to say how they plan to vote on various gun legislation as it faces approval in the coming weeks.
“We’re not going to talk about that,” Turner said. “I want to thank you for coming. I’ve been a representative for 13 years here, and I regret that I’ve never done this before because it was enlightening.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I cannot wrap my head around how someone thinks that passing a law and taking guns from law-abiding people is going to prevent a criminal activity. If criminals followed the law, they would not be criminals. This is only going to benefit criminals.
As for people using kids to promote anti-gun agenda. “How can you choose guns over children…” Law abiding gun owners are NOT choosing guns over children. Criminals who shoot up a school are making that decision. We care about children. We have children. We were children. It upsets us too when this happens. It also upsets us when politicians and people who are anti-gun waste time focusing on something that is not the underlying problem as this is time NOT spent addressing the real issue.
This Age restriction thing is also dangerous for 18-21 year olds. Believe it or not… not everyone in this age range still lives with their parents. They deserve the right to protect themselves when they are off on their own in the world.
A_Trout, did you see the article about 19 killed and 26 injured in japan? It was caused by a knife. We need to stop focusing on the weapon and focus on the person behind it. Focus on WHY people are killing. Focus on what has changed in minds of people over the years. Focus on strengthening school security. NOT taking rights away from good people. Educate yourself on our constitution and why we need to keep our 2A rights.
A_TROUT, you know no facts. First off, stop referencing guns as “weapons of war”. What you mention are actually banned since 1986, and no machine gun, or actual “weapons of war” are legal after 1986 manufacturing date.
Second, the ar15 is NO DIFFERENT than any semi auto firearm. In 2016, 347 people were killed with rifles. All rifle deaths totaled 347. Knives killed ten times that. A recent school attack occurred with a single person stabbing 22 people.
There are 80 million LEGAL AND LAW ABIDING gun owners in America, with over 300 million legal firearms. If the guns were an issue, you’d know it as fact, instead of your severely ill knowledged opinion.
Trevor, yeah, this is about abridging rights over my hurt feelings, as if someone just called me fat or said my $40 haircut looked it was cut by my kid sister.
It’s called life. You only get one. Defending easy access to weapons of war makes it much easier for someone to take life. Governor Scott has recognized this, and it’s time to get on board.
Gun control is never going to actually solve the problem of mass shootings, it’s only going to desecrate the natural rights of law-abiding peaceful citizens. It has been statistically proven that gun-free zones are where the vast majority of these shootings occur. This is because in reality the shooters are typically cowards and want to go to a place where self-defense is severely restricted, so they go where the most useful self-defense tool, guns, are banned. These sick people who shoot up schools don’t want a fight, that’s why they target schools, so maybe we should put armed guards/defenders in the schools or arm teachers who volunteer to be trained and armed. Maybe we actually put up a defensive fight. I’m willing to bet that the very thought of defensive measures in schools and other gun-free zones would deter probably at least %90 of the would-be shooters from actually going through with it. The other %10 would be met with deadly (if necessary) force before they even got through the doors.
Richard Ley – so let’s talk about texting, drunk driving, drug use, bombs, etc, smoking. For public health crises across the spectrum, we make attempts to reduce deaths. We institute seat belt laws. Require reporting purchases of large quantities of fertilizer. Mandate safe driving classes. We have drinking and driving & texting while driving education campaigns. We use speed zones, and many other methods for try to save lives. None of these completely eliminate accidental deaths, but they make a tremendous difference. Now look at how we deal with gun violence. We beat around the bush. Hem and haw. Throw up non-sequiturs. Make apples to oranges comparison. Engage in whataboutisms. It’s as if we can only enact a law if it is entirely perfect, and nothing else is worth doing. Heck, the CDC cannot legally study gun violence in our country.
We do everything except look at the weapons used in massacres. Fully automatic weapons of war are effectively banned in this country, and that doesn’t seem to be an infringement on people’s rights. And that’s why they are not used in massacres. So people use the next best thing. Semi-automatics like the AR. And bump stocks. Things designed to kill people quickly. Which is why I call them weapons of war, and they have no business being in the hands of the citizenry.
Common sense would dictate that my rights don’t only apply when they don’t interfere with your feelings. A knife NEVER has to reload, so that kinda kills that point you were trying to make. The issue at hand is not veiled behind smoke screens as you keep saying, but that people are sick and tired of losing rights so that some people can “feel good” about doing something. Something that won’t work. For the past few weeks, especially here in Vermont the pro gun side has constantly outnumbered those calling for yet more laws. And by a vast margin. Just look at this comment section for a good example, it’s one against guns vs what? 5 of us so far that are pro gun?
A_Trout… you are the biggest smoke screen on this page because you and I both know that these guns you call weapons of war are no different than any other gun being sold.
If you don’t understand that then you should not be up here making the ignorant statements that you continue to make.. talk about a smoke screen.. you are either ignorant about what these guns are or you just want to carry out a false narrative.
We both know that teens texting and driving are killing more people than any of these guns… we both should know because I know the fact I’m not sure you care about the facts..
My suggestion to you is go read about the actual facts before you make responses on this page.
I think the children should be allowed to speak up too.. but not until they are educated on our constitution and understand both sides of the story about guns about the facts about guns and how more guns equals less crime because that is a fact as well.
I really admire the student from Florida where the shooting took place that actually is defending the Constitution and the right to bear arms… obviously he took enough time to learn the truth
A_Trout: a hunting shotgun loaded with buckshot is deadlier in these places than an AR-15 or other rifle. A teacher was arrested in NY for making bombs. Chemicals and cars have been used by killers. Gun control is not going to solve our problems. We need to address the underlying causes of why we have these people wishing to commit mass murder. Politicians don’t like talking about complicated problems though so I don’t expect to see much real action. I do know if the state doesn’t address our lack of a state hospital and how we commit people to one that kid in Fair Haven has a fairly good chance of walking and remaining a serious public threat. Can the legislature please fix that? I don’t want that kid on the streets.
Richard Ley, so instead of addressing my points, you focus on a screen name? And now you bring up marijuana? LOL. Another smokescreen. Keep it up.