Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe consulting with Sen. Dick Sears during a recess in the S.55 debate Credit: John Walters

Updated 7:10 p.m.

By a 17-13 vote Friday afternoon, the Vermont Senate gave final legislative approval to S.55, a wide-ranging package of gun restrictions. After final review by the legislature’s legal team, the bill will go to Republican Gov. Phil Scott, who said after the vote that he would sign it, assuming it passes routine muster by his chief counsel.

“I have every intention of signing it,” Scott said. “I made a commitment that I want to do everything we can to provide our citizens with the safety they deserve.”

Earlier in March, the Senate approved a version of S.55 that required universal background checks for gun purchases and a 21-year-old minimum age for gun purchases. The House then amended the bill to include a ban on bump stocks and limits on gun magazine capacity.

The latter sparked some opposition in the Senate — most notably from Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), who was the original sponsor of the bill. In the end, he voted against it because of concerns about the magazine provision and a hasty approval process in the House.

The 13 “no” votes included all seven Senate Republicans, along with Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia), Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle), Alice Nitka (D-Windsor), John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans), Bobby Starr (D-Essex/Orleans) and Sears.

The final round of debate on S.55 took less than two hours, and appeared to be more theater piece than free discussion. The vast majority of senators never spoke; only two amendments were offered, and one was quickly disposed of; and after the vote, there was a general acknowledgment that the outcome was known from the start.

On Friday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee — chaired by Sears — made a number of amendments to the House version of S.55. The most noteworthy would have eliminated the magazine limits. The Senate debate, originally scheduled for late morning, was pushed back by 90 minutes. The delay appeared to allow time for some backroom dealmaking to prevent an overlong or untidy floor process.

The debate began with Rodgers, a gun owner and fierce advocate of gun rights, offering an amendment of his own. It would have stripped out the magazine limits and the increase in the legal age to purchase guns. Sears then offered a substitute amendment reflecting his committee’s morning work. Senators voted unanimously to scrap Rodgers’ offering — even Rodgers himself voted against his own amendment — and moved on to consider Sears’ amendment.

Sears expressed doubts about the enforceability of magazine limits. He also objected to what he called “errors” in the House bill due to an overly hasty process.

Rodgers provided the verbal pyrotechnics. “If we pass this bill, maybe it’s over,” he said. “Maybe the Vermont I grew up in is gone.”

That was just a warmup. Rodgers bemoaned the influx of outsiders “who came to take away that Vermont.” He then launched into an apocalyptic vision of a future where Vermont is overrun by climate-change refugees: “I wonder where all the folks from New York City will go when it’s underwater,” he said.

Rodgers cited the 40-plus conflicts going on around the world, the threats of terrorism, authoritarianism and natural disaster. “If chaos erupts and bad people invade my house,” he asserted, “I’d rather have a 30-round magazine than a 10-round magazine.”

Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) offered a calmer approach, arguing for passage of Sears’ amendment as a way to keep the discussion going. Had the Senate approved Sears’ version, then the House and Senate would have had to form a conference committee to work out the differences between the two bills. “The Senate is a contemplative body,” Benning said. “We should rise above the passions of the moment.”

The Sears amendment was defeated 18-12. There was a moment of surprise when both Rodgers and Starr voted against Sears, whose head spun around when Rodgers cast his vote. Sears glared at the two Northeast Kingdom seatmates for a moment and shook his head.

The Senate then turned to the House version of S.55.

Sears took the floor to argue against the bill. “If you vote ‘yes,’ you’re approving a bill with errors,” he said. “If you vote ‘yes,’ I hope you consider how you’ll fix the bill before it gets to the governor.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) pointed out that most of Sears’ changes were additions to the House bill, not mere corrections, and added: “If the bill moves on and is signed by the governor, there will be opportunities to fix it.”

As the debate wound down, Sears asked if his name could be taken off the bill, which listed him as the sole sponsor. After a brief recess and a senatorial huddle, he was told that his only option was to withdraw the bill entirely. He declined to do so.

“I knew all along I could have made a motion to withdraw the bill,” Sears said after the final vote. “It would have been like a nuclear option. I wouldn’t do that to my colleagues.”

At that point, the final tally was a formality.

Afterward, Sears acknowledged the historic nature of the moment. “This is the first step on gun control in Vermont that I’ve seen in my time here,” he said. “We’ve done a lot of things to get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, but we’ve never taken a step at what I consider gun control.”

Gov. Scott, in a brief media scrum after the vote, acknowledged that passage of a bill like S.55 would have been unthinkable as recently as two months ago. But then came the Parkland, Fla., school shooting, followed almost immediately by an extremely close call in Vermont. The police affidavit in the latter case, with its detailed depiction of a young man’s preparations to conduct a mass shooting, changed the governor’s mind.

“After reading the affidavit and coming to the conclusion that we weren’t insulated from this type of horrific incident, that this could happen in Vermont, I made a commitment to keep an open mind, let the legislative process work,” Scott said.

“What’s being passed at this point in time doesn’t intrude on the Second Amendment,” he added. “It doesn’t take away their guns, and I believe that we will get accustomed to the new normal.”

Two other gun bills are both a single legislative step away from the governor. H.422 would allow police to confiscate weapons after an arrest or citation for domestic violence. S.221 would allow judges to issue extreme risk orders, which would allow removal of weapons from anyone deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others.

Scott said the next chapter in preventing gun violence is a suite of school safety and mental health initiatives currently being considered by the legislature.

“It’s not just about guns,” he said. “There’s an undercurrent of violence in our country that we have to address.”

Related Stories

John Walters was the political columnist for Seven Days from 2017-2019. A longtime journalist, he spent many years as a news anchor and host for public radio stations in Michigan and New Hampshire. He’s the author of Roads Less Traveled: Visionary New England Lives, published by Plaidswede Press.

27 replies on “Walters: Vermont Senate Passes Gun Bill, Scott Says He’ll Sign It”

  2. The legislators of this state has conned their constituents into believing that this nonsense legislation will make everyone safer. Shame on all of you including our “Republican” governor! This is a simple school security issue and the state has been taken over by outsiders who have a very different agenda than you may think. We have more than 22,000 gun laws in this country, if we would enforce the laws we have and address the obvious, these senseless things would not happen. “Let’s enact sensible gun laws” I hear being said all the time, if this was true why are we enacting non-sensible laws? The truth is that the people pushing this nonsense do not want to solve the problem because solving the problem automatically blocks their agenda! What you are witnessing should not be underestimated, this a huge power grab and the undermining of America and it’s future!

  4. I’m unaware of the extreme danger anyone who goes to a school in Vermont is of being gunned down by an assailant wielding an AR-15. Last I heard, this was one of the safest states in the USA. Yes, there was a close call recently but…nothing happened. The last time I can recall a murder in a school was pushing 10 years ago.
    This dovetails with a 25 year trend of decreasing violence in the USA. It’s done this as gun control as been passed and then died off on a federal level.

    What has gone dramatically up is the coverage of what little violent crime does happen. So, if things are getting safer everywhere, including in Vermont, then why are we passing legislation based on media-driven fears? Our politicians are literally admitting that they’re reacting to a made-up hysteria. This isn’t good leadership.

    It’s also laughable because there’s so much of the stuff they want to ban out there that the supply is likely to dry up for decades. It will marginally affect the supply. Plus, it will just join the list of things Vermonters cross the Connecticut River to buy. Even if these gun control measures could stop crime, they will be worthless, largely symbolic.

  6. If an 18 year old with an assault rifle with high capacity magazine and no background check shot up a Vermont school, then the Vermont John Rodgers “grew up in” would also be gone.

    The irony of the bizarre, Rambo-esque, survivalist fantasyland that John Rodgers lives in is that he has a much higher statistical chance of being killed by hitting a deer on a Vermont roadway than he does by being killed by the terrorists coming to his door that he speaks of. And if an authoritarian government comes to his door, his guns will not save him against the most heavily armed government on the planet. Your AR-15 will do nothing to save you if a US gov’t drone is dropping a bomb on your house. Just ask the Afghanis. Sorry John, but your logic is illogical.

  7. I hope Phil Scott knows that if he signs this bill, his political career will NOT be over and he will have the support of many voters who would not have otherwise voted for him, including a lot of kids who will be coming of voting age. If he signs this legislation the next outcome won’t even be close. He’ll win by a landslide.

  8. This will get the people going!
    Want 30round Magpul Mags?!

    Donate $10 to the VTFSC Defense fund THIS Saturday!
    at the STATE HOUSE!

    SHARE THIS!

    WHO: RECOIL Magazine and MAGPUL Industries

    WHAT: Will be giving away 1,200 standard capacity MAGPUL PMAG rifle magazines free of charge to Vermont citizens (one per person, while supplies last) and accepting donations to the Vermont Federation of Sportsmens Clubs.

    WHEN: 2:30pm Saturday, March 31 until all magazines are distributed

    WHERE: The distribution will take place on the Statehouse steps or from the back of a red Ford F-150 in the parking spaces on State Street in front of the Vermont Statehouse.

  9. I hope Phil Scott knows that if he signs this bill, his political career is over. He barely won the race against Minter and if signs this legislation, the next outcome won’t even be close. The folks that voted for him will not put up with betrayal. Phil Scott is a coward, and has been very disingenuous. I was warned of his RINO tendencies, but I thought him better than the alternative at the time he was elected (Minter). Now I’m not so sure. He certainly is a big disappointment that doesn’t seem to care what his constituents care about. This legislation doesn’t make anyone more safe and can potentially do the opposite. Scott simply caved in.

  10. In another comment I predicted the magazine restriction would kill this bill. I was foolishly operating under the assumption that I was still living in Vermont.

    At this point I think we can officially abandon the myth of Vermont “reasonableness”.

Comments are closed.