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!
This discussion has devolved far enough into the silly zone that I’m going to restrain my comments to those I’ve already made.
I’m only writing to point out that I do NOT and did not “claim to be a scholar of the constitution.”
Right. The government can call up the militia. That isn’t really anything anyone is arguing it doesn’t say. It also had the 9th and 10th amendment, you should read that part too.
It’s not this complicated. The 2a says two things. The right of the people to form militias for their states, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
“The courts opinions are exactly that, OPINIONS, not law.”
No, they are the supreme law of the land, whether you or I like a decision or not.
JohnGreenburg,
The 2nd amendment has stood for almost 250 years, as well established custom, for most of that time entirely unchallenged except in rare cases where it was challenged by hostile professional politicians, the like of which the 2nd amendment was laid down to protect us against. The fact that some BAR Association shill, had the audacity and gall to attempt to twist and malign its wording to play a political shell game with our unalienable rights, is, by definition, the entire reason the amendment was written down in the first place. The courts opinions are exactly that, OPINIONS, not law.
As you claim to be a scholar of the constitution, tell me this. The first ten amendments are also known as distinct by another name, The Bill of Rights… Whose rights are you under the impression these are, the governments rights? The rights of the military, also discussed as the standing army being a threat to liberty that ought not to be kept up in a time of peace?
Mr. Greenberg continues to push the courts as the supreme arbitrators of the US Constitution which is wrong!
Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan.
This is a really bad strategy.
At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself.
Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldnt count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment.
James Madison gave us the blueprint. When the federal government commits unwarrantable acts, the Father of the Constitution didnt say file a lawsuit in federal court. Madison advised a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. Dont depend on politically connected lawyers to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
Tenth Amendment Center
Walter Moses wants links to the text of the US Constitution? I quoted it directly. Ditto, the Heller decision. They ARE the “references” which back up my remarks.
Try again.
Why is John Greenberg’s comments on this article taking up so much space? Four comments all about how other people’s remarks are so ignorant and unworthy. Is Greenberg some sort of expert ? Perhaps someone should ask him for links and references to back up his remarks. Hey, I just did!