The Vermont Senate on Thursday advanced legislation that would impose a 24-hour waiting period on those purchasing handguns. The preliminary vote came despite opposition from gun-rights supporters, who claimed the bill would infringe upon their rights, and from those who said the restrictions weren’t strict enough.
The 20-10 vote suggested that supporters in the Senate would be able to override a potential veto from Gov. Phil Scott, who has expressed opposition to new gun laws. The measure is expected to face a final vote in the Senate on Friday and would then move to the Vermont House.
All six Senate Republicans opposed the bill, as did Sens. Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle), Alice Nitka (D-Windsor), John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans) and Bobby Starr (D-Essex/Orleans).
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), said he was proud that the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, found middle ground between the two divergent positions. “I hope folks won’t be put off by the word compromise, because if we’ve come to that, we’re in deep trouble,” Sears said.
Sears, who had previously opposed the measure, said he learned from experts who testified before his committee that suicide attempts with guns are far more successful than by other means, and that those who make such attempts usually do so impulsively.
“The vast majority of the people who decide to commit suicide [do so] based on an impulse, and that decision was made within eight hours,” he said.
If enacted, the law would require gun buyers to wait a day after undergoing a federal criminal background check before taking possession of a firearm.
After the vote, the family of Andrew Black released a statement supporting the Senate’s move. The 23-year-old Essex man shot and killed himself in December, hours after buying a gun.
“If this handgun purchase waiting period was the law last year I know it likely would have saved our son’s life,” Alyssa Black wrote. “I sincerely hope that this effort will save other families from experiencing the heartbreak we are going through.”
Leading the opposition was Sen. Rodgers, who argued that those who commit mass shootings or suicide are often more influenced by social media than by gun access. “I believe the internet is much more dangerous than firearms are,” Rodgers said.
Similarly, far more teenagers are killed texting while driving than from guns, he said, and yet there is no rush to take phones away from them. He did not mention that lawmakers recently toughened laws against texting while driving.
The Senate rejected an amendment Rodgers offered that would have limited the waiting period to new gun owners. It did approve other suggestions he made, including allowing law enforcement officers from other states and those competing in organized shooting events to possess high-capacity magazines. He said the Second Amendment should not just be viewed as a right for sportsmen.
“It’s about protecting oneself, one’s community, one’s state, one’s country,” Rodgers said.
The Northeast Kingdom Democrat got some backup from Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia), who argued that he wouldn’t support a waiting period on a woman’s right to choose, nor would he support one on when newspaper reporters could file their stories.
Benning argued that, while suicides are tragic, there is no evidence that a waiting period would really work. “But make no mistake, it is an impediment placed in the path of someone who would choose to exercise their right to self-defense,” he said.
Sen. Ruth Hardy (D-Addison) said she was disappointed that the bill didn’t impose stricter rules. She grew up in and lives in a rural area and supports firearms for hunting and sport, she said, but is keenly aware of the dangers they present.
“I also know that guns pose a significant public health, domestic violence and public safety threat,” she said.
The mother of three school-aged children said she knows firsthand the impact gun violence — especially school shootings — is having on children today. “Our children are stressed and scared, and they have been demanding that we do something,” Hardy said.
She said she considered 24 hours too short of a waiting period, noting that many states require waits of a week or more. She also lamented the limitation to handguns, noting that someone could just as easily kill himself, herself or others with a rifle. She said she would support the bill out of the spirit of compromise Sears expressed.
“More change will come and I will be here in this chamber to help make it happen,” she said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“”Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
“Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
“Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
“Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
You tax-paying, law-abiding, god-fearing, good-guy with a gun citizens can go home tonight, look lovingly at your guns, and know you can see them again tomorrow. Hug ’em tight, and keep living the dream world from long ago when flint-lock guns ruled the world in which men made laws.
Amend the Vermont Constitution. It’s time.
Our rights are not given to us by the constitution. Some of them are merely recognized by it. The constitution limits the government’s power.
All rights are immediate, or they are not rights. You are born with a right to your life. The ability to defend it is paramount. The founders saw this, wrote about it, and both Federalists and anti Federalists agreed entirely about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At all times. Federalist 29, the constitution of Virginia, the constitution of Vermont.
There were founders with private warships. In the revolution, the continental navy held 64 ships. The public operated close to 1700.
It’s why they talked about “letters of marque”.
@ Tiki
Declaration of Independence: Our Rights Come From God..
Alienable according to Websters 1828 Dictionary means, That may be transferred to another[1] Therefore if the American Founders wanted to indicate that their rights could have been transferred to their elected representatives to be regulated and controlled, they would have used that term. However, they chose to describe our rights as unalienable, that which cannot be transferred to another. John Adams, a member of the committee that drafted the Declaration, made this understanding indisputable when he explained, I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government, Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe.[2] Note that Adams said, rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws
There is no “right” to instantaneous gun access. Just the opposite is true: The Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent demand regulation of “arms”.
It’s unfortunate the law does not go further by embracing standards found in every other industrialized country on earth. One needs to look no further than the posts on this bulletin board to see why the U.S. leads the world in gun deaths each year.
There is no such thing as “gun violence”. This is a focus-group-driven buzzword and talking point to create an imaginary bogeyman as the main anti 2nd Amendment propaganda tool. There are PEOPLE who commit violence with guns, but there are many more people who commit violence without them.
And, since the term “gun violence” is a catchword/cliche, the title suggests an unattainable goal. People have been robbing and killing other people, using the weapons of the day, since the beginning of man on this planet, which identifies the real issue – controlling criminal impulses in humans, not the otherwise legal instruments they use to commit crimes.
Anyone who doesn’t realize and/or acknowledge this isn’t thinking, s/he is ‘feeling’, and our liberty cannot depend upon what anybody ‘feels’.
There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”
If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.
BEWARE, BEWARE