The Senate Judiciary Committee debates gun laws Friday. Credit: Paul Heintz

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously Friday to bar certain convicted criminals from possessing firearms and to report the names of some mentally ill people to a federal database. 

Friday’s vote set up an exceedingly rare floor debate next week over the supposed third rail of Vermont politics: the state’s relatively permissive gun laws. 

But even as the committee prepared to sign off on the bill early Friday afternoon, its members appeared focused on what they weren’t approving: namely, universal criminal background checks.

“S.31 is not being acted on in this committee,” its chair, Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), said. “S.31 is dead — I guess that’s the proper term — and will not be acted on this year or next year by this committee.”

Sears was referring to the subject of weeks of heated testimony and an evening hearing last month that brought out hundreds of gun-rights supporters and opponents. The centerpiece of that bill was a requirement that those buying guns in private sales must submit to federal background checks. 

While the committee abandoned that provision weeks ago, it continued to debate two other components of S.31: a ban on certain convicted criminals possessing firearms and new federal reporting requirements. As the committee neared a deadline to take action Friday afternoon, it opted to include both measures in a new committee-authored bill. 

That was enough for gun-control activists to celebrate.

“This is a historic victory, because this is a gun violence prevention bill that’s going forward despite the opposition of the gun lobby,” Gun Sense Vermont cofounder Ann Braden said after the vote. “This issue has been untouchable for years and now it’s on the table.”

Gun-rights supporters provided more measured responses.

“We’ve done this for many years,” said Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. “We understand this is one more step in the process. At this point, we still have things that concern us, but we’re willing to participate in getting the bill right.”

Ed Cutler, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, said his “big paranoia” is that the Vermont House could approve more restrictive legislation in the coming weeks. But Cutler celebrated the Senate committee’s decision to set up a study of whether a suicide prevention strategy employed in New Hampshire might work in Vermont. (See Nancy Remsen’s story on the New Hampshire Gun Shop Project in this week’s Seven Days.) 

Committee members spent much of Friday morning debating which convicted criminals would be barred from possessing firearms. Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) questioned whether those guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct ought to be stripped of their constitutional right to bear arms, even if they rose pretty high on the “creep-o-meter.” 

The committee eventually decided to bar those convicted of violent crimes, such as murder and sexual assault, from possessing guns, along with those convicted of trafficking guns. It exempted such crimes as lewd and lascivious conduct, reckless endangerment and driving-related offenses.

The committee also struggled with the question of whether to report the names of those deemed mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, whose names would be reported and whether they could later be removed from the list. 

Sears expressed frustration that so many questions about the process remained as Friday’s crossover deadline approached.

“We’re running out of time,” he said. “We either do this or we don’t.”

In the draft approved Friday, the names of those ordered by a court to undergo mental health treatment would be reported to the system, known as NICS. Those found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity and those found not competent to stand trial would also be reported.

After three years, such people could petition to be removed from the list.

Friday’s vote was a victory for Senate President John Campbell (D-Windsor), who implored Sears to take action on gun laws this year, and for Sens. Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden) and Claire Ayer (D-Addison), who introduced S.31 with Campbell. 

It’s a setback for Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has strongly opposed most new restrictions on gun rights.

Paul Heintz was part of the Seven Days news team from 2012 to 2020. He served as political editor and wrote the "Fair Game" political column before becoming a staff writer.

10 replies on “Vermont Senate Poised for First Gun Rights Debate in Years”

  1. The problem with laws and criminals, Criminals by nature don’t give a rats patoot what lawmakers think or do. This is an after the fact process of outlawing, outlaws it wont close the barn door before the horse bolts. I guess we will feel better when the criminal is caught we can lock them up for a longer time but criminals engaging in crimes with guns already go to prison so these laws are an exercise in onanism for people who think some ink on a paper stops crime. if only it were that easy.

  2. It’s hilarious watching the gun control people walking around with puffed out chests like they passed some life changing bill out of committee. All they have done is pass a law banning gun ownership for people that were already not allowed to have guns. Maybe next session we can make murder even more illegal!

    Meanwhile we still have a $100M deficit. Jobs are fleeing the state. Our education finance system is a mess. We wasted over $7m on a single payer health plan that would never have worked.

    Yeah. Go Montpelier. You are doing a bang-up job.

  3. S:31 died. two provision were pushed onto another bill. The “Astroturfers spent over $250,000 from Michael Bloomberg’s pockets to get it done. Mayor Bloomberg is one of the foremost proponents of “Racial Profiling” and vastly enlarge its institutionalization in the NYPD through the unconstitutional practice of “Stop and Frisk”. 90% of the victims of this Bloomberg pushed program were young Black and Hispanic males. Much less than 1% of subjected to this humiliation were arrested or even ticketed for any unlawful activity. Asked the 90 Legislators who accepted laundered Bloomberg money during the last election if they support “Racial Profiling” like Bloomberg.

  5. This isn’t just about gun rights. This is also about the mentally ill and their rights. Their rights get stripped “for their own good” but little exists for these people to regain their rights once they are well. Sure they can petition the court, but that can and does take years and thousands of dollars. To me that is unconscionable.

    This treatment of the mentally ill as lessor humans is disgusting.

  6. What about vets who are told by a doctor they have PTSD? Does that automatically put them on a “list?” Do they miss out on big game hunting events with programs like wounded warrior? Or do they just not go for fear of losing out on something that is a hobby or interest. Do they have to go back and prove they are healed? This bill seems very vague.

  7. “After three years, such people could petition to be removed from the list.”

    At what financial cost? And how long will it take for the petition to actually go through, starting at the three year mark? How much will it cost that individual to get his or her rights back? Where and by whom will that person’s firearms be stored? Or, are those firearms now the property of the state, to be sold off at pennies on the dollar? If they are not sold off, then how much will it cost to store them and who will be paying for that…Vermont taxpayers or the person on the blacklist?

    This law is a hidden disaster for this state and its people. It is a first stepping stone to more and more choke-hold gun control laws. Do we, as Vermont citizens, really need to be going through this just to satisfy the gun abolitionists’ personal hoplophobia? Don’t we have better things to worry about than phantom non-problems like this?

  8. “It’s a setback for Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has strongly opposed most new restrictions on gun rights.”

    Why? All he has to do is veto this terrible thing. I’m sure all of this state’s gun owners will be paying careful attention to that.

  9. Mental health is the avenue to gun confiscation..

    politicians and Media push gun control in a dishonest manner..

Comments are closed.