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!
JohnGreenberg
Ok I guess I have to pull out the Article [IX] (Amendment 9 – Unenumerated Rights)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When the U.S. Constitution was put to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, the Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication.
For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”[4] Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, “I conceive that in a certain degree … the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted”[5] by Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Article One, Section 8 was never meant to give power of the Government over the power of the people.
Sorry, Donald. My bad. I mis-transcribed your name. The error is all mine.
I should stick to cutting and pasting.
Finally, as to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, it’s irrelevant here. We live under the US Constitution., which is the product of ALL of the framers, not just Madison.
I am interpreting what the document says, not what Madison or anyone else might have said elsewhere. The first rule of interpreting any text is to look at the text itself, and go outside of its “four wall” only when the text is unclear. That’s precisely what I’ve done here.
JohnGreenberg
Are you calling me Donald Drake? I hope not I was upset that people were insulting you.
As I have stated before I still believe that the US Constitution clearly states the rights and requirements of the Government and and The amendments to the Constitution specifically in my comments The Bill of Rights is the Guaranteed Rights of the People. To me you seem to be totally ignoring the rights of the people and also ignoring James Madison who composed the first drafts of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and earned the nickname “Father of the Constitution.” who also helped write the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights is a document drafted in 1776 to proclaim the inherent rights of men, including the right to reform or abolish “inadequate” government.
Thanks Donald Drake. I’m happy to leave it here and call it a good dialogue.
“FreedomtoThink:” For the record, I have read both the Federalist Papers and a lot of the other materials you suggested I read. But thanks for the history lesson.
Second, despite all your verbiage, the facts here are pretty straightforward.
The US is a Constitutional republic in which “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Specifically, given that you cite various state constitutions, if and when there is any conflict between the US Constitution and a state constitution, the former, not the latter is the “supreme law.”
The US Constitution provides for militias, as I have previously outlined. The provisions in Article I specifically designate one of the purposes of militias being to “suppress insurrections.” If you can reconcile that with the idea that the purpose of militias was to foment insurrections against duly elected governments, please feel free to do so.
Given that none of your verbiage does that, I stand by my comments, notwithstanding your insults about my intelligence, my knowledge of grammar, etc.
While we’re recommending reading, I suggest that you read Justice Stevens’ dissent in the Heller case, which was joined by 3 other justices, esp. pp 5-9. Then ask yourself, do you still suggest that 4 Supreme Court justices never made it past 3rd grade grammar?
JohnGreenberg
Great debate. Going to stop at this point don’t like seeing this devolve to name calling. Thanks again.
JohnGreenberg
” just as the text of the Constitution say, but NOT to support insurrections against Constitutionally elected government.”
You really have poor reading comprehension or just enjoy naive and flaccid arguments.
The states first became independent and sovereign states, later banding together to form the constitutional republic of the union, delegating limited powers to a federal government. Prior to this, they all had their own constitutions.
Here is Article 10 from the New Hampshire constitution.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784
JohnGreenberg
” (I can’t resist adding that prior to the Heller decision, it was a commonplace of Constitutional interpretation that the amendment’s rights pertained ONLY to such a militia, NOT to individuals. “
Yah, that’s what all the imbeciles with a third grader’s understanding of basic grammar would think.
“Specifically, in this instance, Article I makes it clear what it does NOT mean. The theory that the framers wanted to provide citizens with firearms to revolt from a Constitutionally elected government is clearly spurious.”
You might want to try expanding your reading a little more, or maybe a lot more. Maybe try per-constitution discussions and debates along with the Federalist Papers and Jefferson’s writings. Or maybe just try this one simple concept; the government didn’t write the constitution, the people did, as the charter that instituted the government & outlined how a government was going to be allowed to exist, by the consent of the people.
JohnGreenberg
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).
The Virginia Declaration of Rights is a document drafted in 1776 to proclaim the inherent rights of men, including the right to reform or abolish “inadequate” government.
On 26 August 1789, the French National Constituent Assembly issued the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen) which defined individual and collective rights at the time of the French Revolution. Some delegates at the Assembly had expressed their admiration for Magna Carta and other constitutional documents, such as the United States Declaration of Independence, but ultimately the Déclaration rejected appeals to ancient charters of liberties, based on the principle that the rights of man were natural, universal and inalienable.
Donald Davis:
I think we’ve finished with 1 & 2.
3) What you quote from the Miller case confirms the points I made previously.
First, this: “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” The words “such forces” refer to militias, NOT to individuals. Only in the Heller case, for the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applies not just to militias (that’s been obvious since the amendment was ratified) BUT ALSO to individuals. That’s what I thought I said before.
Then this: “It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws,” just as the text of the Constitution say, but NOT to support insurrections against Constitutionally elected government.
JohnGreenberg
1) Thank God you are not making the laws. Imagine how many laws that could be made that might save 2,400 people. Last time I knew you were suppose to be free in the United States. Before you come back with “it does not take away your right it is just a waiting period” How many other things could a waiting period be applied? Probably millions.
2) Check
3) in 1939 In United States v. Miller, The Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
“Guarantee of the Second Amendment” long before Heller