After years of deadlock and division, a majority of the Vermont Senate now supports legislation to require background checks for all gun sales in the state, according to a survey conducted by Seven Days.
Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Burlington) promised Thursday that the proposal, which died in committee in 2015, would come to a vote next week on the Senate floor — likely as an amendment to related firearm legislation. In interviews around the Statehouse that day, 17 of Vermont’s 30 state senators told Seven Days they would definitely vote for the measure, which would close the so-called “gun show loophole.”
Six senators said they would vote against it: Joe Benning (R-Caledonia), Brian Collamore (R-Rutland), Alice Nitka (D-Windsor), John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans), Dick Sears (D-Bennington) and Bobby Starr (D-Essex/Orleans).
Five senators said they were undecided. Some of those said that they had not yet read the bill, known in its current form as S.6, or that they wanted to see if there would be other proposals attached to the measure. Those senators included Randy Brock (R-Franklin), Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia), Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle), David Soucy (R-Rutland) and Richard Westman (R-Lamoille).
Two more said they were leaning in one direction or another but had not made up their minds: Carolyn Branagan (R-Franklin) said she was leaning in favor of the proposal, while Peg Flory (R-Rutland) said she was tentatively opposed.
Here’s what senators said when Seven Days asked, “If the language of S.6 is presented for a vote on the floor, would you support it?”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
We need legislators who arent going to be Dicks about common sense legislation and citizen priorities!
Please vote Dick Mazza and Dick Sears out! They have way too much power and influence and do not listen to the will of the people!
The Senators who vote NO are waiting for someone to be killed by weapons acquired without a background check. Then they’ll act, and only then. And they’ll say, ‘If we had only known.”
An unenforceable law. No one will ever know if two people do an illegal private sale in the privacy of their homes. It would only be discoverable if either a violent crime happens with said weapon or one chooses to self incriminate. People can’t be forced to self-incriminate. WA has had next to zero success with their version of this law. It’s openly ignored by law enforcement and citizens alike in rural WA. Last fall a person who stole a firearm from a Cabelas store was only the second person charged with breaking it in spite of open disobedience.
What will be included in a background check? I assume it would be limited to what is reported. So, would the Florida shooter have had his previous mental health issues and questionable statements and behaviors identified as there were no previous arrests? I would like to know what information/who is required to report information that would be covered by the check – is it broad enough? If not, can it be made to be?
They are pushing for far more restrictive laws than universal background checks
Once again- shame on Seven Days for not providing truthful journalism
AND what will this bill accomplish?? nothing who is going to follow that law maybe 1% of the people . sadly the bloomberg express is rolling
Any legislation passed that is in contradistinction to the constitution is unenforceable & automatically null & void on it’s face. Anyone attempting to enforce such legislation is subject to felony charges of acting outside their authority.
FreedomToThink, you make these grand statements but they have nothing to do with how the laws of the land actually work.
These senators voting for UBC’s will make turn law abiding Vermonters into criminals with the swipe of a pen.
We the people living in Vermont applaud Governor Phil Scott for enforcing stricter access to guns and gun
Law changes! Were sick of hearing about us not abiding by the second amendment in our Rights to public safety in our schools, churches, concerts, or gowned owned roads or open spaces! We, like the young people in our state demand gun law change as we feel gun owner activists do not look at the First Amendment!
Scott was not voted in because he wanted stricter gun control. The idea that a majority of Vermonters wants this is laughable.
The legislature will pass this law and nothing will change and then when Vermont actually has a tragedy involving a legally purchased gun or one acquired illegally the cry will go out again for even stricter regulations. In the end, regulations will only make it more difficult for honest law abiding citizens to purchase firearms for personal protection or sporting use – criminals never have a problem getting the weapons they need and laugh at the laws intended to stop them !