The Vermont Senate on Thursday advanced legislation that would impose a 24-hour waiting period on those purchasing handguns. The preliminary vote came despite opposition from gun-rights supporters, who claimed the bill would infringe upon their rights, and from those who said the restrictions weren’t strict enough.
The 20-10 vote suggested that supporters in the Senate would be able to override a potential veto from Gov. Phil Scott, who has expressed opposition to new gun laws. The measure is expected to face a final vote in the Senate on Friday and would then move to the Vermont House.
All six Senate Republicans opposed the bill, as did Sens. Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle), Alice Nitka (D-Windsor), John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans) and Bobby Starr (D-Essex/Orleans).
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), said he was proud that the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, found middle ground between the two divergent positions. “I hope folks won’t be put off by the word compromise, because if we’ve come to that, we’re in deep trouble,” Sears said.
Sears, who had previously opposed the measure, said he learned from experts who testified before his committee that suicide attempts with guns are far more successful than by other means, and that those who make such attempts usually do so impulsively.
“The vast majority of the people who decide to commit suicide [do so] based on an impulse, and that decision was made within eight hours,” he said.
If enacted, the law would require gun buyers to wait a day after undergoing a federal criminal background check before taking possession of a firearm.
After the vote, the family of Andrew Black released a statement supporting the Senate’s move. The 23-year-old Essex man shot and killed himself in December, hours after buying a gun.
“If this handgun purchase waiting period was the law last year I know it likely would have saved our son’s life,” Alyssa Black wrote. “I sincerely hope that this effort will save other families from experiencing the heartbreak we are going through.”
Leading the opposition was Sen. Rodgers, who argued that those who commit mass shootings or suicide are often more influenced by social media than by gun access. “I believe the internet is much more dangerous than firearms are,” Rodgers said.
Similarly, far more teenagers are killed texting while driving than from guns, he said, and yet there is no rush to take phones away from them. He did not mention that lawmakers recently toughened laws against texting while driving.
The Senate rejected an amendment Rodgers offered that would have limited the waiting period to new gun owners. It did approve other suggestions he made, including allowing law enforcement officers from other states and those competing in organized shooting events to possess high-capacity magazines. He said the Second Amendment should not just be viewed as a right for sportsmen.
“It’s about protecting oneself, one’s community, one’s state, one’s country,” Rodgers said.
The Northeast Kingdom Democrat got some backup from Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia), who argued that he wouldn’t support a waiting period on a woman’s right to choose, nor would he support one on when newspaper reporters could file their stories.
Benning argued that, while suicides are tragic, there is no evidence that a waiting period would really work. “But make no mistake, it is an impediment placed in the path of someone who would choose to exercise their right to self-defense,” he said.
Sen. Ruth Hardy (D-Addison) said she was disappointed that the bill didn’t impose stricter rules. She grew up in and lives in a rural area and supports firearms for hunting and sport, she said, but is keenly aware of the dangers they present.
“I also know that guns pose a significant public health, domestic violence and public safety threat,” she said.
The mother of three school-aged children said she knows firsthand the impact gun violence — especially school shootings — is having on children today. “Our children are stressed and scared, and they have been demanding that we do something,” Hardy said.
She said she considered 24 hours too short of a waiting period, noting that many states require waits of a week or more. She also lamented the limitation to handguns, noting that someone could just as easily kill himself, herself or others with a rifle. She said she would support the bill out of the spirit of compromise Sears expressed.
“More change will come and I will be here in this chamber to help make it happen,” she said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
This waiting period proposal has nothing to do with suicide at all. It looks like a group of people who have always cared a great deal about gun control suddenly pretending to care a lot about suicide as a means of forwarding their favorite laws. It is an excuse for gun control, like domestic violence was last year. Next year they will find a new excuse for more gun laws, and nothing whatever will have been done about suicide or domestic violence, least of all by the people who most vociferously supported the gun laws.
Rates of suicides have doubled since the use of technology.
CDC Statistics, VTSPC, VTDOH. (firearms #1 over mva’s).
Thank you supporter of VTSPC & MADD
So stupid, leave our guns alone!!! This just made it annoying to buy a gun thats at a dealer thats far away. One you have to go in person, so say you r buying a gun that only one shop has thats 100 miles away you now would have to travel there on the first day to fill out paper work and submit background check then not be able to get your purchase till the next day making it so you have to travel all that way again.
DICK sears name says it all . Do you sir think a person who wants to commit suicide will wait for permission, you and your cohorts are true idiots . Your group of anti Americans are a reason why my home is for sale to leave this sinking ship of a state I love .
At what point do we make the people that commit these violent acts responsible for what they have done instead of passing it along and blaming it on someone else.
I really hate to see someone take their own life but it is their own free choice to do that and it is not up to anyone to infringe upon my rights because someone else exercised theirs.
This is just another step in accomplishing the goal of taking the guns away from the hard-working tax-paying law-abiding people in the state of Vermont..
Who are the experts that testified?
Are they people that were conjured up to defend the infringement upon the gun owners in the state of Vermont or are they real people with no agenda and no axe to grind..
It is time to stop punishing the people in the state of Vermont that abide by the law because of those that don’t.
I want to thank those in our government that stand up for our rights time after time but when we slip and fall and concede to those contrary to our constitution give away something that should never be given away…
It is such a sad day in Vermont when honest people are stripped of their rights
When somebody wants to kill themself. They do it. Whether its with a hose attached to the exhaust in the car window, with pills, a gun….they do it. Dont blame the tool. Taking constitutional freedom away wont stop this terrible thing.
You Vermont Legislators keep your hands off of our constitutional rights! Figure out ways to make us more free. Not less!
Here we go with the gun nuts collective outrage. These people couldn’t care less about anyone other than themselves and their prepubescent views of themselves as the cowboys in the wild west. Its expected that Republicans like Joe Benning would fight any and all common sense regulations with respect firearms, but those that call themselves “Democrats” that fight all efforts to try and mitigate the damage that guns can cause should be thrown out of the party to join their good buddies in the Republican party. I don’t advocate the banning of all firearms and in fact own some but I do support common sense regulation.
Every day I’m more confident I made the best decision leaving your state.
The whining about suicide rate spikes within a week of a gun purchase isn’t even a good stat. It’s false causality. And what does 24 hours do when you keep citing a week timeline?
You pay rich people to live there who don’t commute while being behind on basic road maintenance, have burdensome vehicle regulations, and went over budget on salt which from what I hear does something to those cars. Your tax base is leaving, young people are leaving, and your legislature is doing this.
Good job VT. You made this bed.
Heres a novel idea, why doesnt someone make public the VT specific statistics related to this alleged social issue. How many people, by year, have purchased a handgun and within 24hrs committed suicide? Let the numbers tell the story. SevenDays is very lazy when it comes time to holding the Legislature accountable on gun legislation. SevenDays relationship with Tim Ash is not healthy for any of us.
Still doesn’t address the folks who care less of laws. We never get to the root cause of the problem!
There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”
If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.
BEWARE, BEWARE
There is no such thing as “gun violence”. This is a focus-group-driven buzzword and talking point to create an imaginary bogeyman as the main anti 2nd Amendment propaganda tool. There are PEOPLE who commit violence with guns, but there are many more people who commit violence without them.
And, since the term “gun violence” is a catchword/cliche, the title suggests an unattainable goal. People have been robbing and killing other people, using the weapons of the day, since the beginning of man on this planet, which identifies the real issue – controlling criminal impulses in humans, not the otherwise legal instruments they use to commit crimes.
Anyone who doesn’t realize and/or acknowledge this isn’t thinking, s/he is ‘feeling’, and our liberty cannot depend upon what anybody ‘feels’.
There is no “right” to instantaneous gun access. Just the opposite is true: The Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent demand regulation of “arms”.
It’s unfortunate the law does not go further by embracing standards found in every other industrialized country on earth. One needs to look no further than the posts on this bulletin board to see why the U.S. leads the world in gun deaths each year.
@ Tiki
Declaration of Independence: Our Rights Come From God..
Alienable according to Websters 1828 Dictionary means, That may be transferred to another[1] Therefore if the American Founders wanted to indicate that their rights could have been transferred to their elected representatives to be regulated and controlled, they would have used that term. However, they chose to describe our rights as unalienable, that which cannot be transferred to another. John Adams, a member of the committee that drafted the Declaration, made this understanding indisputable when he explained, I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government, Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe.[2] Note that Adams said, rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws
Our rights are not given to us by the constitution. Some of them are merely recognized by it. The constitution limits the government’s power.
All rights are immediate, or they are not rights. You are born with a right to your life. The ability to defend it is paramount. The founders saw this, wrote about it, and both Federalists and anti Federalists agreed entirely about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At all times. Federalist 29, the constitution of Virginia, the constitution of Vermont.
There were founders with private warships. In the revolution, the continental navy held 64 ships. The public operated close to 1700.
It’s why they talked about “letters of marque”.
You tax-paying, law-abiding, god-fearing, good-guy with a gun citizens can go home tonight, look lovingly at your guns, and know you can see them again tomorrow. Hug ’em tight, and keep living the dream world from long ago when flint-lock guns ruled the world in which men made laws.
Amend the Vermont Constitution. It’s time.
“Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: 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.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
“Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: 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.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
“Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: 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.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
“”Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: 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.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
You could probably do something to help yourself learn about how our language works and how it’s evolved over time. Maybe an adult education class?
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
From the Oxford.
It sure looks like they meant exactly the same thing as “laws restricting”! What would they do without a ton of regulations on clocks? It couldn’t possibly mean “operating well” or “maintained”
They also said that blacks aren’t citizens. Citizens United seems to upset people. Might not want to argue that they always get stuff right.
A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharp dressed Man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed.
Does the well tailored suit have a right to keep and wear clothing in this sentence? Really?
Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
North Carolina, December 18, 1776
A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Vermont, July 8, 1777
Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
“”Ruthouse” and “Doom” declare themselves exerts on rights and go on to declare their right to access guns is effectively unlimited. Notwithstanding these pseudonymous experts, the Constitution begs to differ.
Even Heller, which waved away the word “militia” in the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment, recognized that: 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.”
The 2nd amendment begins with the words: “A well regulated Militia.” If the founders had wanted the rights (or the militia) to be unregulated, why did they begin by saying exactly the opposite? What does “well-regulated” mean, if not regulated?
Mental health is the avenue to gun control..
American Psychiatric Asso says Half of Americans are mentally ill..
After crafting by politicians and Media all will be crazy except for the media/politicians..
300 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were written in 2009 alone..
Your children on medication for ADHD?
Single woman with children diagnosed with depression?
be careful what you ask for
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the STATES have an armed & trained citizenry (the Militia) which can be used, when push comes to shove, to defend the STATES from the federal gov’t and from the federal gov’ts disastrous policies [e.g. unrestricted immigration]. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (James Madison).
States no longer have a Militia. With the Dick Act of 1903, the States surrendered the Militia (over which they had control) and allowed it to be federalized – put under federal control. The States’ “national guard” are merely adjuncts of the federal military.
The States did it for the money. Yes, they got federal funds for allowing the federal gov’t to take over their State Militia.
It is your State governments which sold you down the river.
PH
If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!
In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
“Ruffhouse: writes: “The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the STATES have an armed & trained citizenry (the Militia) which can be used, when push comes to shove, to defend the STATES from the federal gov’t and from the federal gov’ts disastrous policies [e.g. unrestricted immigration]. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (James Madison).”
Article I, section 8 says otherwise. Among the powers it grants to congress are these: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
It would appear that the text of the document itself directly contradicts “ruffhouses”‘s interpretation: suppressing an insurrection is not the equivalent of fomenting one. Most of us learned the difference as a result of the Civil War. Perhaps that’s WHY since Marbury v. Madison, the courts have been the arbiters of what the document means and not self-appointed pseudonymous “experts.”
These professional pencil pushers have become destructive to our unalienable rights and our way of life. It’s time a militia was raised, acting on the orders of a common law grand jury of the people and these traitors be taken under arrest for violation of their oaths of office. Their treason goes too far!!!
Why is John Greenberg’s comments on this article taking up so much space? Four comments all about how other people’s remarks are so ignorant and unworthy. Is Greenberg some sort of expert ? Perhaps someone should ask him for links and references to back up his remarks. Hey, I just did!
Walter Moses wants links to the text of the US Constitution? I quoted it directly. Ditto, the Heller decision. They ARE the “references” which back up my remarks.
Try again.
Mr. Greenberg continues to push the courts as the supreme arbitrators of the US Constitution which is wrong!
Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan.
This is a really bad strategy.
At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself.
Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldnt count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment.
James Madison gave us the blueprint. When the federal government commits unwarrantable acts, the Father of the Constitution didnt say file a lawsuit in federal court. Madison advised a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. Dont depend on politically connected lawyers to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
Tenth Amendment Center
JohnGreenburg,
The 2nd amendment has stood for almost 250 years, as well established custom, for most of that time entirely unchallenged except in rare cases where it was challenged by hostile professional politicians, the like of which the 2nd amendment was laid down to protect us against. The fact that some BAR Association shill, had the audacity and gall to attempt to twist and malign its wording to play a political shell game with our unalienable rights, is, by definition, the entire reason the amendment was written down in the first place. The courts opinions are exactly that, OPINIONS, not law.
As you claim to be a scholar of the constitution, tell me this. The first ten amendments are also known as distinct by another name, The Bill of Rights… Whose rights are you under the impression these are, the governments rights? The rights of the military, also discussed as the standing army being a threat to liberty that ought not to be kept up in a time of peace?
“The courts opinions are exactly that, OPINIONS, not law.”
No, they are the supreme law of the land, whether you or I like a decision or not.
Right. The government can call up the militia. That isn’t really anything anyone is arguing it doesn’t say. It also had the 9th and 10th amendment, you should read that part too.
It’s not this complicated. The 2a says two things. The right of the people to form militias for their states, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
This discussion has devolved far enough into the silly zone that I’m going to restrain my comments to those I’ve already made.
I’m only writing to point out that I do NOT and did not “claim to be a scholar of the constitution.”