After a bitter debate Friday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly approved a compromise bill proposed by Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington) that would require a 24-hour waiting period for handgun sales in Vermont.
The measure is a scaled-back version of a bill introduced by Sen. Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden), who wanted a 48-hour waiting period for all gun sales. His proposal had support from the family of 23-year-old Andrew Black, an Essex man who shot and killed himself in December, hours after purchasing a gun.
Baruth, who sits on the five-member Judiciary Committee, was unable to find two allies for his proposal. Instead, he signed on to Sears’ compromise, which still needed support from one more committee member in order to pass.
The bill would create penalties of a $500 fine or up to one year in prison for people who turn over a handgun to a buyer less than 24 hours after completing a background check for the purchase.
Sears said he introduced his compromise proposal for a 24-hour ban after hearing testimony from a wide range of experts, including emergency room doctors and gun shop owners. He read an excerpt of a letter from one gun seller who wrote in opposition of waiting periods.
“Many of our sales are impulse buys,” Sears read from the letter. “A 48-hour waiting period pretty much puts an end to the impulse buy.”
Sears said the letter was convincing, but not in the way its author intended.
“I realize he was trying to tell me not to vote for the bill, but by the same token, he’s saying many of his sales are impulse buys,” Sears said.
The senator also pointed to testimony from Dr. Rebecca Bell, a pediatric critical care physician from the University of Vermont Medical Center. She told the committee that contrary to popular belief, people who are suicidal do not simply find any means necessary to kill themselves in the absence of a gun.
“The ‘inevitability myth’ that says a person with suicidal ideations will just find a way is particularly damaging,” Sears read from Bell’s testimony. “Ninety percent of those who survive near-lethal suicide attempts do not go on later to die by suicide.”
Sens. Jeanette White (D-Windham), Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) and Alice Nitka (D-Windsor) questioned whether it’s the responsibility of state government to intervene if a person decides to end their own life.
Benning, who said he’s lost multiple friends to suicide-by-handgun, compared suicide prevention efforts to government interference in women’s right to choose an abortion.
“I know this may sound, at first blush, as if it’s coming out of left field, but the fundamental right of an individual to control their bodies and make decisions about their bodies is something I’m very attuned to,” Benning said. “And as crazy as this may sound, if I decide to commit suicide, what right does the state of Vermont have to try to intercede because somebody around this table feels, ‘Well, that’s tragic’?”
Nitka agreed. Pointing to Vermont’s 2013 law that allows patients with terminal illnesses to receive a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs, she suggested those patients should have same the right to buy a gun and shoot themselves.
“We keep hearing the statistics about suicide. Very sad,” Nitka said. “But in fact, it’s not sad when someone who is suffering from cancer simply ends their life — decides on their own they will kill themselves by their own means and decides to shoot themself. And even though we allow people to commit suicide via death with dignity or whatever we call it now, we allow them to do it. And just because someone chooses a different method doesn’t mean that that’s not their choice to do.”
Nitka said she knew multiple people with late-stage cancer who had shot and killed themselves.
The deciding yes vote came from White, who admitted that she was conflicted about whether the state should intervene in cases of suicide.
“I do think that if somebody is in that situation [with a terminal illness], or they think about it for a long time, I’m not sure we have a right to tell them that we know best for them,” White said.
But her decision was influenced by the story of a friend’s son, who she described as a “really happy kid.”
“He went out that night and it was slippery and he wrecked his mom’s new car,” White said, “and he was really bummed out about that and he thought she was going to yell at him. He went to his very favorite place … the top of a mountain right near my house.”
After a morning of heated exchanges in which senators spoke over each other, White’s story brought a sense of quiet to the room. There were no side-conversations or raised hands from other senators waiting to get a word in.
“It was a beautiful January night. The moon was out. There was this little cabin there on the top of the hill. And there was a rope hanging there, and he hung himself,” White said. “I know that he had not thought about that before.”
She said a waiting period for handgun purchases could prevent similarly impulsive suicides.
“If we have a short waiting period, it might …” White said, trailing off. “I believe that if an owl had hooted right then, that he would have been jolted out of that. But I will never know that.”
Benning and Nitka voted against the bill.
Benning voiced concern about passing legislation that would make it harder for domestic violence victims to buy guns immediately after a breakup. Plus, he pointed out that it’s unknown how many suicides-by-firearm in Vermont took place within 24 hours of the gun’s purchase.
“We have a speculative bill that might reduce suicides, and that’s the hope. But it comes at the expense of others we have seen fit to try to protect with legislation that we all worked very hard on,” Benning said, referring to last year’s law that created Extreme Risk Protection Orders, which allow police to take guns away from people after a court order finds them to be a threat to themselves or others.
Nitka said she thought it was a “good bill” but that she lost faith in the legislative process last year when House lawmakers amended Senate-approved legislation to include the ban on high-capacity magazines. That proposal did not go through the usual committee process. Concerned that the proposal would be amended later by other lawmakers, Nitka voted no.
“Given the future of this bill in the Senate and the House, I can’t support it because it’s too risky,” she said.
The committee added two other provisions to the bill, both related to gun laws the legislature passed last year.
One would allow high-capacity magazines for use at shooting competitions. The other would require state officials to collect information about the use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders. The committee said lawmakers want more information about how those orders are being used within the justice system.
After Friday’s 3-2 committee vote, the legislation is expected to advance to the full Senate next week.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Sen. Joe Benning: “If I decide to commit suicide, what right does the state of Vermont have to try to intercede because somebody around this table feels, Well, thats tragic?
This bill does nothing to restrict the ‘right’ to suicide. It just delays it by 24 hours.
“Benning voiced concern about passing legislation that would make it harder for domestic violence victims to buy guns immediately after a breakup.”
If concern for domestic violence victims is suddenly Sen. Benning’s concern, maybe he should defer to groups that regularly help those victims. Those groups support waiting periods on lethal weapon purchases that are used far more often to abuse than defend.
Thank you, Sen. Sears, for your wisdom in recognizing how impulse buying can be a lethal choice.
And our Democratic Gov will stage some excuse to sign it. I am not sure why someone would choose to shoot themselves unless they already had a gun. Then it is an impulsive act.
Plenty of painless ways to end it than shooting yourself. I remember when you used to be able to buy a suicide kit on Ebay.
Using a story about suicide by hanging to justify infringing the unalienable rights of an entire state with a waiting period for guns. Not even all guns, just handguns… So what’s the cumulative IQ in the statehouse down to now?
Just a little slice here, a sob story there, just a tiny little chip this time, we promise, for poor so & so… and one day your Grandkids are asking you to tell them that story about what it was like when people had rights. But not too loud, the KGB might hear.
I’d like to see a copy of Sen.’s Baruth, Sears & White’s Oath of Office posted here, right under the story of their treason.
Tiki Archambeau: Last year victim’s rights groups made it very clear to us that the most dangerous time in a domestic violence victim’s life are the five days immediately following a breakup. For that reason I worked very hard (with them) to develop H.441, a bill that enabled a court to immediately remove weapons from the household of a domestic violence situation and keep them out of the hands of the abuser. My efforts centered around ensuring there was due process involved when such an order was issued. Eventually the bill passed unanimously through the Senate, almost so in the House and was signed by the Governor.
I acknowledge that presence of guns increases the likelihood of lethal results. But some of those victims choose to immediately buy their own handgun for self-protection just in case the abuser returns to abuse them in spite of a court order. Self defense is a right specifically provided by our state constitution in Article 16. The most common weapon of self defense is a handgun. I take an oath upon election to do no thing injurious to that constitution.
As I saw it today, we impeded that victim’s constitutional right on the speculative hope (and even though I voted against it I truly do hope it works) that it “might” prevent the suicide of someone else. I’m uncomfortable making that leap.
I agree with you that impulse buying can be a lethal choice, but who’s choice is that to make when it comes to dealing with one’s own body- government’s or the individual’s? I’ll be asking that question again soon when we debate reproductive rights. I’ll be interested in hearing your thoughts then.
While I think there are problems with Joe Benning’s concern about potential domestic violence victims, here’s a simple suggestion.
Why not add a clause which allows those who believe their need is so urgent that waiting 48 hours will put them at risk the right to appear before a court (or another body the legislature might prefer) to make their case? In other words, allow an escape valve through which, for example, domestic partners who believe they need a weapon NOW can be protected.
John Greenberg; “
Why not add a clause which allows those who believe their need is so urgent that waiting 48 hours will put them at risk the right to appear before a court (or another body the legislature might prefer) “
The point of the government having no authority whatsoever to tell anyone that they must beg their permission to exercise a free & **unalienable** right, being completely aside… What if it’s Friday night? Sunday morning? I’m pretty sure there is a trend toward most domestic violence happening on the weekends.
For those keen on state intrusions on one’s thoughts or personal feelings I suggest reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley or perhaps 1984…
Unfortunately, Vermont has indeed New Yorked my Vermont Gun Rights away effective 2017.
Now that VT has NY gun laws, our esteemed liberal lawmakers, i.e., Philip Baruth simply adds amendments to the existing gun laws. The Anti-Gun floodgate has been opened… ( I profoundly give Gov. Phil Scott credit for this )
Law abiding gun enthusiasts & sportsman such as myself are now a criminal element because of reckless legislation created by clueless elected liberal lawmakers that simply live in fear of guns, period.
Am I about to pay $75.00 to $100.00 to a licensed gun dealer in order to sell a $25.00 handgun or rifle to a friend I’ve known my entire life to run a background check, hell no! I will predate the Bill of Sale. DONE… Now I have broken the law & I have effectively become a rogue criminal.
The moral of the story here is the ” unintended consequences ” when bad laws are written.
Thank you & have a nice day… :<)
Glad I left. Not coming back. Not giving you a dime. Ever.
William Farr
1)You are never a criminal for ignoring an unjust & unconstitutional law.
Most of what these BAR Association puppets are doing is just word play that does not apply to The People. Ask yourself, are you a Citizen? i.e. were you “granted” citizenship under the 14th amendment, made a citizen by an act of the legislature, as are immigrants and refugees, making you a subject of the government? Or are you a natural born American/Vermonter, deriving your unalienable rights from your creator as an American who’s government derives it’s authority by your consent? The legislature can pass no law abridging the unalienable rights of The People. But if they write it in legalese to where it really only applies to a 14th amendment “citizen”, who is not “one of the people” and they dupe you into believing your are a citizen as the public fool system is contrived to do, then you believe it applies to everyone, when it doesn’t. We have two systems of law in this country, one constitutional within the republic, the other a democracy contrived by the BAR Association criminals. Don’t fall for the shell game.
2)The real criminals are those in the statehouse who’ve sworn an Oath of Office to uphold and preserve the constitution above all else and then stand in our statehouse and piss on that very oath, the constitution and our children’s futures, daily.
“Freedom to think” raises 2 objections to my comment: one practical, one constitutional.
As to the questions about timing, my answer is simple. Given that whoever is going to make these determinations is doing so specifically for people in emergency situations, that person (or persons) needs to be on call on a 24-7 basis, or at least at any times when guns could be purchased. Doctors and pharmacies, for example, do this all the time. Presumably, anyone not making an emergency claim could simply wait out the waiting period.
As to the constitutional objection, you assume what you need to prove: namely, that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to access any and all firearms at any and all times.
But the same Supreme Court majority which ruled in Heller that the amendment, which for over 200 years had not been interpreted as applying to individuals, DOES apply to individuals, also ruled that the right is NOT unlimited and that governments CAN apply reasonable restrictions: 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.” So you have your work cut out for you. It is worth noting, at least in passing, that 4 of the 9 judges did not agree that the right pertains to individuals.
Finally, the implications — by you and others — that yours is the only plausible reading of the 2nd amendment is not only totally false, but it is incredibly arrogant, especially when you add threats for legislators having the audacity to construe it differently than you do.
In reading the comments above:
What happened to empathy? Most of the comments above are regarding infringement of rights.
For those family’s who have lost a loved one from a suicide or to other random acts of violence,
much empathy to you,
More needs to be done, this is a good start with the 24 hour waiting period.
I am not trying to offend any gun right owners, however more needs to be done keep firearms out of arms reach. Studies have been done, in some instances children were not able to identify a toy gun from a real one.
Furthermore, studies have shown that since the use of the internet, the numbers of suicides have increased. Ask any teenager, they can tell you the impacts of social media, they see if everyday.
Have you seen or heard what is being viewed?
We can not block everything they see or hear on the internet or news.
It is my opinion, the more that these random acts of violence/suicides are advertised (sales/ratings), one could only speculate an increase. Can more be done to help prevent this?
The supreme Court said blacks aren’t citizens. I don’t put any stock in what they say.
Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, and the founders other writings and the Federalist papers explain that they really did mean it. Not only did they want the people to be armed, they wanted the people to have equivalent arms of the standing armies. They used the word arms on purpose. How you see a waiting period in that text is laughable.
But I’m sure everyone here who is ok with a waiting period for an enumerated right would be ok for imposing one for a right the supreme Court put in the constitution, right? Abortion. No you either think that both can have waiting periods and restrictions that may not be reasonable. Or you don’t. You need to wait a week before you can post online or start a newspaper. Or you don’t.