Two committees of the Vermont Senate summoned a pair of Harvard Business School professors to the Statehouse on Thursday in an attempt to breathe life into vetoed gun legislation.
The bill in question, S.169, would mandate a 24-hour waiting period before most handgun purchases. It cleared the legislature last May but was vetoed in June by Republican Gov. Phil Scott.
Since then, legislative leaders have struggled to decide whether to compromise with the governor or attempt to override his veto, which would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers. While the measure met that threshold last year in the Senate, it fell short in the House on a vote of 82 to 58.
On Thursday, senators sought to convince their colleagues — and perhaps the governor — that the bill could, in fact, save lives. They invited professors Deepak Malhotra and Michael Luca to present their research showing that waiting periods cut the homicide rate by 17 percent and the suicide rate by 7 to 11 percent.
“If this policy passes, if the objective is to reduce gun deaths, that would be something you could very much expect,” Malhotra told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.
The professors reached their conclusions after analyzing the outcomes of various state-based waiting periods over a 45-year span and studying the impact of a national waiting period in effect from 1994 to 1998. They determined that, throughout the country, waiting periods could prevent 900 homicides and 950 suicides a year.
Such measures, Malhotra conceded, were “not a magic wand,” noting that 90 percent of suicides would still take place. “But every one of those deaths has an impact on the family, the community, the entire state,” he said.
Less clear from their research, the professors acknowledged, was whether the length of a waiting period made it more or less effective. They were not able to study the efficacy of a 24-hour waiting period because no state has enacted such a limited measure.
Scott cited that paucity of applicable data last year in explaining his veto to reporters. “There are no comparisons to a 24-hour waiting period on handguns alone,” he said at a press conference. “There are no-apples-to-apples comparisons.”
The governor hasn’t, apparently, changed his mind since. According to spokesperson Rebecca Kelley, Scott “stands by this decision” and believes that “the best way to build upon the work we’ve done to reduce gun violence and suicide is to focus on the root causes.” She cited proposals from his budget address earlier this week that would increase funding for suicide prevention and early intervention programs.
“If the Senate disagrees, they have the ability to override the governor’s veto,” Kelley said.
Whether the Senate will attempt to do so remained unclear after the professors delivered their testimony. During a brief discussion about what to do next, members of the Judiciary Committee complained that the administration had not made clear what the governor would support and what he wouldn’t.
“It’s hard to make that decision without actually hearing from them,” said Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), who chairs the committee.
One option, Sears suggested, would be to increase the duration of the waiting period — something the senator has previously opposed. Another would be to strip out that portion of the bill and pass a more limited measure. Its other provisions include closing the so-called “Charleston loophole” by requiring background checks to be completed prior to a sale and allowing medical professionals to request “extreme risk protection orders” against those they deem a risk to public safety.
That’s the preferred approach of Bill Moore, a firearms policy analyst for the Vermont Traditions Coalition, which supports gun rights. “There’s consensus on all of the other elements,” he said. “So we would strongly urge both [chambers] to go ahead and just take out the waiting period — have that debate on another platform.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) said he believes the Senate “should do anything we can to get a waiting period passed into law to save lives.” But, he added, “We’re also realistic. There are three partners in this, and hopefully the research helps people make a better decision.”
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Responding to Sarle’s comment:
According to the VT Dept of Health and the VPR Gunshots series, there were 1,308 suicides in Vermont from 2005-2018. The number of reported cases wherein the method of suicide was a firearm purchased within three days of the event was two. In both cases, suicidal behavior had been ongoing for an extended period and it is doubtful that a waiting period would have ultimately stopped them. Still, that amounts to 0.15 of one percent of the suicides committed in Vermont during that period, meaning that a waiting period in Vermont could not possibly have any effect on 99.85% of suicides.
Exactly how many documented cases of handgun suicides have occurred in VT in the last 10 years where the deceased purchased their handgun within 24 hours of their shooting themselves?
I suspect the answer is very few, if any.
This is another example of a solution looking for a problem. I have never heard a verified number of suicide deaths that warrant more restrictions on Vermonters. People want to live free. Our legislature does not seem to believe it or understand it.
Thanks John Greenberg for the response.
The specific example of student to staff is, in fact, an excellent case in point. Unless you’re suggesting a mandate from the State that the ratio be no lower than x, which Scott certainly has NOT proposed and would not support,
Gov. Phil Scott is determined to find ways to reduce Vermont school costs, and on Tuesday his administration rolled out a proposal to pressure schools to reduce staff. As drafted by the Agency of Education, the proposal would penalize school districts if their student-to-staff ratio is lower than 5.5 students for every one staff member, or some other target ratio
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/…
Reply to JohnGreenberg
1: The only mass shooting in Vermont had to do with a woman who failed 2 separate background checks and then stole a rifle and killed the people. So I guess that 1 in 5 still used a gun. So once again that 17% is a number that has no proof it would actually happen and almost every article out there trying to support their opinion use the same information as in this article. That does not make it true.
2: Here is the rest of what is said after unlimited since you seem to have left it out. Wonder why? Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
3:The militia, long a staple of republican thought, loomed large in the deliberations of the Framers, many of whom were troubled by the prospect of a standing army in times of peace. For the Founders, a militia, composed of a “people numerous and armed,” was the ultimate guardian of liberty. It was a means to enable citizens not only to protect themselves against their fellows but also, particularly for the Anti-Federalists, to protect themselves from an oppressive government.
Replies to Donald Davis’s first 3 arguments:
1) “Otherwise every fifth person buying a gun would be going out and killing someone.” Nope. Every fifth person who DOES kill someone would no longer be doing so. If, say, a million people buy guns and 5 of them use the guns to kill someone, the figure means that 1 of the 5 would no longer do so.
2) “The second amendment says “shall not be infringed”….” But the same Heller decision written by Scalia that Davis quotes approvingly says “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.”
3) This absurd argument about protecting citizens FROM the government is precisely backwards.
It ignores the initial words of the2nd amendment: “A well regulated Militia ….” The Constitution also uses the term “militia” in article I, Section 8, where it gives Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Heller court states: “we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment.” (p.23)
So the Constitution gives the militia 3 roles, none of which has anything to do with securing freedom from an abusive government. Indeed, one of them is precisely the opposite: namely, to “suppress Insurrections.” Around the time the Constitution was drafted (and still), insurrections (e.g. Shay’s rebellion) were based on the claim that the government was “tyrannical.” The Constitution explicitly calls on the militia to suppress such insurrections, and it certainly provides no basis for arming insurgents.
Thanks to those who took the time to respond to my question. However, some pushback is necessary.
“Well the Governor has made it pretty clear what cuts and spending initiatives he would like to make.” Sorry, but he’s been anything but clear. “Clear” would be a proposed piece of legislation, a draft bill. Not “clear” is ongoing verbiage about things either he can’t change or has no specific proposal to change.
The specific example of student to staff is, in fact, an excellent case in point. Unless you’re suggesting a mandate from the State that the ratio be no lower than x, which Scott certainly has NOT proposed and would not support, then we’re talking about spending which is controlled at the local level; in other words, spending a governor can do nothing about other than use his bully pulpit and try to jawbone local boards
***********.
The only other specific proposal is to eliminate vehicle inspections. Even if we assume this is a great idea (which frankly, I strongly doubt), the savings to the State would surely be a fraction of 1% of the cost of state government and do absolutely nothing to cut state budgets. In fact, it might very well have the opposite effect, since all the money paid for inspections in the private sector is taxable income, which produces income tax revenue to the state.
********
I won’t repeat my previous comment, but it remains pertinent. Specific cuts?
Let’s dig into these numbers a bit. The study purports the homicide rate would be cut by 17% with a 24-hour waiting period.
Information for 2018 I found in a VPR report (http://projects.vpr.org/gunshots-vermont-g…) indicates that 12 homicides involved a firearm of any kind. 17% of 12 equates to roughly 2 homicides in 2018 in which a firearm was used.
I haven’t accounted for homicide by law enforcement, or homicide with other than a handgun (which would reduce the number even further).
Is there any empirical evidence anywhere that suggests that up to 2 newly-purchased handguns are used to take a life? The 17% value put forward by these experts represents data that are gleaned from NATIONAL figures that represent a large population. With an actual sample size of only 12, such calculated values are essentially worthless. The margin of error alone is greater than 2.
I don’t for an instant belittle the pain and anguish inflicted on the friends and family of these murder victims. That is very real. In a perfect world, there would be no murder, ever. But there is. Yet our legislators are are using up valuable time that could be spent solving far more significant societal issues that affect exponentially more than 2 people in all of VT. Evidence suggests that VT is nearing a tipping point in terms of demographics, cost of services, and over-taxation. We must focus on the many, not the 2. (And I know that sounds heartless)
In my opinion, based on reported facts, our representatives should spend the bulk of their time on important issues that affect 650,000 people rather than political issues representing *perhaps* 2 people.
Ok John Greenburg. First we ditch vehicle inspections. No data to suggest that this process makes our roads safer than states without this; of which there are many. The governing body that watches over this, goodbye. The team that developed and maintains the new computer system for inspections, no longer needed. Our legislators (I know one well) brings home $1200 a week, after taxes for their role. Much of it being travel expenses, meals, hotel rooms, that they never use: CUT. Maybe meet every other year, like NH. Now they are proposing a bill in which they get paid YEAR ROUND. No. Our board of Education, slice. Stop ridiculous initiatives that cost taxpayers millions and so far, have lowered student performance. See “Proficiency based learning”. The list goes on and on and on…..
I believe that there is a simple solution to the arms purchase waiting period issue. If someone has a legitimate reason to forego the waiting period, have them get a cosigner on the purchase, with the cosigner meeting all vetting comparable to that of the purchaser and being informed that they would be face conspiracy or accessory charges to whatever crime might be perpetrated with the weapon. The timeframe and severity of this liability can be something for the legislators and Governor to work out, but the bottom line is that people with a valid need for a same day purchase should certainly be able to find someone in agreement. The major concern is trying to curb the impulsive use of a firearm. Besides reducing the tragedies from the rash purchase and use of firearms, the act of reaching out to another person exposes a possible bad actor to a friend or family member who might be able to get the potential buyer some help or alert authorities.
First, there is no way a waiting period reduces homicide rates by 17%. Otherwise every fifth person buying a gun would be going out and killing someone. Second, The second amendment says “shall not be infringed” not will only be infringed for a day. Third, there is about 627,000 people in Vermont and about 4,000 guard members and 1,100 police and/or the United States has a population of 329,00,000 and a standing military of 1,300,000 so for Vermont that would be 156 people per soldier and the United States as a whole it would be 253 people per soldier so yes I believe that citizens could usurp a corrupt government even with them having the jets and tanks (Sorry Ethan Rogati your argument doesn’t hold water). Fourth, Justice Scalia in 2008 Washington DC vs. Heller in the Opinion of the Court (findings) common use of the time were protected. Just about every country in the world issues a select fire rifle with a 30 round magazine to its infantry soldiers (Guess what the Second Amendment protects). Finally how has noone made it a law to report failed background checks? The only mass shooting in this state would have been prevented if the two times she failed background checks it was reported. Since it was not reported she stole a rifle and killed people. Waiting period = worthless, Reporting failed background checks would work.