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!
These professional pencil pushers have become destructive to our unalienable rights and our way of life. It’s time a militia was raised, acting on the orders of a common law grand jury of the people and these traitors be taken under arrest for violation of their oaths of office. Their treason goes too far!!!
“Ruffhouse: writes: “The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the STATES have an armed & trained citizenry (the Militia) which can be used, when push comes to shove, to defend the STATES from the federal gov’t and from the federal gov’ts disastrous policies [e.g. unrestricted immigration]. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (James Madison).”
Article I, section 8 says otherwise. Among the powers it grants to congress are these: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
It would appear that the text of the document itself directly contradicts “ruffhouses”‘s interpretation: suppressing an insurrection is not the equivalent of fomenting one. Most of us learned the difference as a result of the Civil War. Perhaps that’s WHY since Marbury v. Madison, the courts have been the arbiters of what the document means and not self-appointed pseudonymous “experts.”
If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!
In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the STATES have an armed & trained citizenry (the Militia) which can be used, when push comes to shove, to defend the STATES from the federal gov’t and from the federal gov’ts disastrous policies [e.g. unrestricted immigration]. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (James Madison).
States no longer have a Militia. With the Dick Act of 1903, the States surrendered the Militia (over which they had control) and allowed it to be federalized – put under federal control. The States’ “national guard” are merely adjuncts of the federal military.
The States did it for the money. Yes, they got federal funds for allowing the federal gov’t to take over their State Militia.
It is your State governments which sold you down the river.
PH
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe
Mental health is the avenue to gun control..
American Psychiatric Asso says Half of Americans are mentally ill..
After crafting by politicians and Media all will be crazy except for the media/politicians..
300 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were written in 2009 alone..
Your children on medication for ADHD?
Single woman with children diagnosed with depression?
be careful what you ask for
“”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?
Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
North Carolina, December 18, 1776
A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Vermont, July 8, 1777
Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharp dressed Man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed.
Does the well tailored suit have a right to keep and wear clothing in this sentence? Really?
You could probably do something to help yourself learn about how our language works and how it’s evolved over time. Maybe an adult education class?
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
From the Oxford.
It sure looks like they meant exactly the same thing as “laws restricting”! What would they do without a ton of regulations on clocks? It couldn’t possibly mean “operating well” or “maintained”
They also said that blacks aren’t citizens. Citizens United seems to upset people. Might not want to argue that they always get stuff right.