The Vermont Senate passed a bill Friday that would both raise the legal age for purchasing guns from 16 to 21 and mandate universal background checks.
Debate focused on raising the legal age; the Senate had given preliminary approval to universal background checks on Thursday.
The age-limit proposal came from Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) and 15 cosponsors, effectively guaranteeing its passage in the 30-member Senate.
On the Senate floor, Ashe said the goal behind that proposal was to keep young people from impulsively harming themselves or others.
In response to concerns raised by Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Sears (D-Bennington), Ashe said the bill was written not to limit the borrowing or gifting of firearms. It also wouldn’t impact hunting traditions, he said.
The legislation includes exceptions for members of the military and law enforcement officers who are purchasing guns for their official duties.
Sen. John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans) opposed both universal background checks and raising the purchasing age. The government recognizes the maturity of people who are 18 by allowing them to vote and join the military, he said.
“I have a son in the Navy who is into guns and hunting,” Rodgers said. “And what you’re saying is, when he comes home off-duty and he’s under 21, he can’t purchase a firearm for hunting or personal protection or anything else.”
Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) also opposed both measures. He recalled attending protests during the Vietnam War in which young people rejected the notion that they could be drafted at 18 but couldn’t vote until age 21.
“This is counter to what my generation fought for,” Benning said after the vote, “and counter to what my oath of office requires me to protect.”
Ashe’s amendment to raise the legal age to purchase firearms passed by a vote of 21 to 9. The underlying legislation, which also included the universal background check amendment, passed on a tighter vote of 17 to 13.
The House has not yet taken up legislation to raise the gun-purchasing age or to mandate universal background checks. On Friday, the House gave final approval to a bill that would allow police to confiscate guns at the scene of a domestic violence arrest and create a process that allows police to take guns away from people whom a judge deems an “extreme risk.”
Many House Republicans opposed that bill, saying that confiscating guns before a court is involved violates Vermonters’ rights to due process.
A flurry of activity on gun legislation began two weeks ago after authorities said they had foiled a teen’s plot to shoot Fair Haven Union High School students. The teen’s arrest came to light just two days after a gunman shot and killed 17 people in a high school in Parkland, Fla.
Gov. Phil Scott, who had previously considered the state’s gun laws adequate, called for gun control bills and school safety measures.
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.
Correction, March 3, 2018: A previous version of this story erroneously reported that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans’ rights to due process. The “due process” clauses are in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Donna – knowing that your son was killed gives me grief. I called you a 60-minute Christian and now regret it, knowing that I haven’t walked a mile in your shoes. But you still treat other commentators rudely and with incredible disdain, though, and I can’t imagine you’d be like this in person. Or do you yell SNOWFLAKE at people that you disagree with in real life, too?
@BDE.. So my comment is strange huh..Way because I have guns? You a gun hater? We were taught about guns at an early age. We were taught they were not to be touched unless an adult was present, we were taught to respect guns. My son was in the Military, he was 48 when he was killed!!!! so don’t tell me to grown up. I’m sure I know more about guns than you ever will. Why don’t you grow up !!!! SNOWFLAKE
Senator Benning – you’re waiting for something to happen before you act. The accused Fair Haven man, 18 years old, would have legally purchased an AR-15 if had the money. You’re stating that until someone is massacred by an 18-year old with an AR, you’re unwilling to act. That’s horrific.
Just for everyones info-the AR in the gun named AR-15 stands Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle. Armalite is the company that developed the rifle in the 1950’s.
“Wahrheit claims that this bill contradicts the 2nd amendment. Hes totally wrong.
Until 2008, no court ever decided that the 2nd amendment applied to individual gun ownership. That changed when the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in Heller v DC that the amendment DOES apply to individual ownership”
You sir are totally wrong, and seriously misinformed.
No court ever made a decision on this before because for more than the first 200 years it was never once even a question. Not until a bunch lunatics came along thinking they were so righteous they could decide what was best for everybody else.
There is nothing about any part of the constitution that places limits on the people. The document was written by the people, to place limits on the governments power over them. The government instituted among men, deriving it’s just power from the consent of the governed. The 2nd amendment is there to insure it stays that way.
Yup people let out of staters get in office and now we are having our rights taken away from us..Let a socialist into office (sanders) and he wants to give everything away free but take away your rights.. Just because you don’t own a gun no one else should, just because you hate guns we all should.. just because you hate hunting everyone else should. Vermont was a great state to live in. 7 generations of Vernonters here, all had/have guns and never killed anyone. One of my sisters got a gun when she was 6 yrs old, my son got his first gun at 7.. and guess what neither one killed anyone. my son bought his first gun at 17.. Oh and I have guns too. !!!!
John Greenburg: Re: your comment: ” they will have to wait until they are 21 to buy (legally) a weapon that can be used for killing. “
Please recognize the distinction of this bill’s “having to wait to buy” versus actually “possessing” a weapon. Twenty year old Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook school shooter, didn’t buy his weapon. He used his mother’s. Seventeen year old Dylan Kleibold and eighteen year old Eric Harris, the Columbine shooters, didn’t purchase their weapons directly; they used a straw purchaser. Proponents of this new age restriction produced not one shred of evidence that any of our country’s mass killings would have been prevented if this law were in place.
So as a result of the actions of a (thankfully still) mere handful of our population, what, exactly, does this bill accomplish to prevent the next tragedy? We don’t know, but it makes us feel good. However, we DO know some of its unintended consequences. An 18 through 20 year old trainee at the Vermont State Police Academy will not be allowed to purchase a gun. A 20 year old veteran returning from Afghanistan, who is no longer on active duty status, will not be allowed to purchase a gun. An 18 through 20 year old Olympic athlete in training for the biathlon will not be allowed to purchase a gun. They will all have to borrow or steal somebody else’s.
For me, without evidence that this law will prevent anything and knowing the unintended consequences, I submit impinging on the constitutional rights of the roughly 70,000 perfectly law-abiding Vermonters between the ages of 18 to 20 is unjustified.
Someone please tell John Rodgers that the 80s pornstar look is no longer in.
They should ban the AR 15, no one needs an assault rifle…
Wahrheit claims that this bill contradicts the 2nd amendment. Hes totally wrong.
Until 2008, no court ever decided that the 2nd amendment applied to individual gun ownership. That changed when the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in Heller v DC that the amendment DOES apply to individual ownership. So that is now the law of the land. HOWEVER, in so ruling, the Court was unequivocal: 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. nothing in our opinion should 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. (p. 54)