The bill, known as S.221, now advances to the Senate floor with support from domestic violence prevention and gun-control groups — and even grudging acceptance from some gun-rights groups.
The legislation would allow law enforcement officials to file for an “extreme risk protection order” even at the scene of an incident. If a judge approved such an order, police could take guns away from a subject for up to 60 days.
Friday’s vote represented the first legislative action since Democratic leaders and Republican Gov. Phil Scott called for an aggressive response to last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., and a foiled plot in Fair Haven. At press conferences Thursday, Democrats committed to passing S.221, among other measures, and Scott implored lawmakers to send it to him for signature before Town Meeting Day.
Bill Moore of the Vermont Traditions Coalition said Friday that his organization preferred S.221 to a House-passed measure that would allow police to confiscate guns without a court order in domestic violence cases. That bill, H.422, cleared the House last March by a vote of 78 to 60 but has been stuck in Senate Judiciary ever since. (Scott and the Democrats pledged to pass that bill, too.)
“You cannot look at that success of the deliberative legislative process unless you look at it in context of [H.422] being such a badly written bill,” Moore said. “So lacking in due process, so offensive to law enforcement’s ability to work in the field. If it wasn’t for that, this thing might have languished.”
Moore credited Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington) with finding an alternative that some gun rights groups could accept. “He said, ‘Here’s the same thing [as the House bill], with due process, and states are doing it, and it seems to be working,’” Moore said.
The Vermont Traditions Coalition and its fellow gun-rights groups do not support other legislative remedies proposed by Scott and Democratic leaders, such as those that would mandate background checks for all gun sales and ban so-called “bump stocks.”
Sears told Seven Days in January that his “extreme risk protection order” bill was modeled after similar laws in Washington and Oregon. He wasn’t sure at the time if his bill had a chance of passing the Senate. On Friday, he said last week’s tragedy in Florida and near miss in Fair Haven gave the measure a sense of urgency.
“Quite frankly I thought it was gonna be one of those difficult bills to ever get passed here,” Sears told his committee Friday before they voted 5-0 in favor of the legislation. “Unfortunately, the events of the past week have allowed us to move judiciously on this bill, get it through. And I hope that it will make a difference as soon as it is put into place.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Friday’s vote represented the first legislative action since Democratic leaders and Republican Gov. Phil Scott called for an aggressive response to last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., and a foiled plot in Fair Haven. “
The Fair Haven incident is still an ALLEGATION- not a “foiled Plot”…This website seems to have a problem understanding basic journalism and the concept of a presumption of innocence
I will say it AGAIN- Mr Sawyer- the man behind the ALLEGED plot in fair haven has pleaded INNOCENT to the crime he is accused of.
He is presumed innocent until proven guilty
Seven Days should start affording him this basic right and end what has become nonstop slander
Snow creek do you know Mr. Sawyer personally?
citizen- Nope. I care about due process
Its one of our fundamental rights.
A right that Seven Days fails to recognize
Ok I was just curious. And thanks for standing up for the constitution and the citizens of this great nation.
Honestly I dont find what Mr Sawyer is accused of pleasing. But I will allow him his due process and right to a presumption of innocence.
Our criminal court system is certainly flawed- but we should at least try and uphold the rights that we are supposed to be granted if someone is accused of a crime.
society breaks down quick when basic tenets of what are supposed to be inalienable rights are taken away
Well just for a minute think about the consequences if the authorities didnt preemptively act…. and he carried out his documented plan, to shoot up a school, or even ended his own life, who would your indignation be aimed at then?
Its about due process. I am not perceiving unfair treatment. I am noting actual unfair treatment of this young man by this very website. He is still ACCUSED of these allegations. The state has yet to prove its case and he should be free from being the face of a crime that he has not been convicted of
What if you were accused of murder?
Would you be ok with this newspaper producing stories about how lucky the public is that you were arrested?
Who would you be directing your anger at such an “indignation”???
A very similar approach takes place when one has been cited for a DUI. Your license is taken by police and sometimes car impounded. This is lack of due process as well is it not? But we deem this acceptable, no? I never heard anyone saying after being cited for a DUI one rights should not be compromised, there was intent and circumstantial evidendence, while not a conviction – it is a modest compromise I think most are willing to make.
Additionally. On the topic of domestic violence there is evidence that shows what happens when victims of assault name their accusers between the time of reporting and due process. Women specifically, are five times more likely to be killed in these cases. From what I can tell most of the due process comment here are from a male POV, maybe try to have a little more empathy.
A car doesnt have rights. And a license is a privilege. You dont seem to understand what are rights and what are privileges. As for domestic violence- what on earth does that have to do with this case and the conversation being had?
what bizarre comments
its amazing how some people will try and justify raking away others rights
Please, Seven Days, find a way to deliver your message without compromising Sawyers right to due process. The (poor) choice of words – foiled plot – has sidetracked an extremely important discussion. I believe the error also reveals an implied bias as opposed to reporting just the facts.