Hundreds streamed into the Statehouse for a hearing held by two Senate committees, filling the House chamber and overflowing into nearby rooms to watch it remotely.
Wearing green shirts and buttons were those who backed a controversial bill establishing new restrictions on guns sold privately to felons and those who are mentally unfit. In blaze orange shirts, vests, hats and stickers were those opposed to any new gun laws in Vermont.
Orange far outnumbered green, but both sides expressed equal passion.
“I don’t speak to you as a supporter of gun control but rather as a supporter of gun safety,” green-shirted Louise Coates of Barre said at the start off the two-and-a-half-hour hearing.
“We are headed down a slippery slope toward confiscation,” countered orange-clad Bob Shea of Fairfax.
Tuesday night’s arguments reflected an age-old debate in Vermont. It has found new life in the legislature this year now that lawmakers are considering a bill backed by the advocacy group Gun Sense Vermont. The group formed after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Connecticut.
Gov. Peter Shumlin reiterated earlier Tuesday that he sees no need to change the state’s gun laws, but said, “I think these debates are healthy for Vermont.”
Shea reminded senators of the political peril they face if they pass new restrictions in rural, hunting-heavy Vermont.
“We Vermonters know there’s going to be a roll-call vote and we have long memories,” Shea told senators.
Sixty-five people signed up to speak against the bill — and 43 for it. Each had two minutes to make his or her case to 10 members of the Senate Judiciary and Health & Welfare committees.
The hearing turned emotional as both sides struggled to control their strong feelings. Those with a lifelong love of guns and hunting squared off against those who see tighter laws as an important response to high-profile cases of gun violence across the country.
“I’m not a violent person,” said John Burditt of Sudbury. But he said a charge filed against him after a black-ice car crash could keep him from buying a gun if the bill were to pass.
Barbara Scotch of Montpelier stirred up opponents of the bill with her comments. “The gun owners who are against this bill must have something to hide,” she said.
Later, when opponents of the bill applauded a speaker, Health & Welfare Committee Chair Claire Ayer (D-Addison) called a five-minute break.
When she reconvened the hearing, the audience had thinned slightly.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Last night at the Statehouse- I was there…500 orange vs about 60 green. Three overflow rooms were filled besides the main chamber. Most of us didn’t get a chance to speak. I was #34 on the opposed list of 65. The format dictated equal representation by the minority- 32 persons from each side spoke before comments were cut off at 7:58 pm. Those opposed to S31 were quite well behaved, except when Ms Scotch accused us all of being alcoholics & having something to hide…this isn’t about hunting, it is about the people’s right to bear arms, & registration leading to confiscation by the State. In spite of Terri Hallenbeck’s implications about “thinning”, there was a strong crowd presence right to the very end, & a very strong showing by Gun Rights proponents.
This is cut and dry…get the damn flat landers out of the house. They move into this state and want to change our heritage because they couldn’t do anything where they use to live!!!! I was born and raised here in vermont and have a deep passion for guns. A true Vermonter has a gun in there home for protection and sport. We have the lowest gun related crimes in the nation…hell the police shoot more people in the state then a Vermonter with a gun. You guys need to look at the facts and not what happens in other states. Leave us alone and go back to where you came from!!!!!
“. . . a controversial bill establishing new restrictions on guns sold privately to felons and those who are mentally unfit.”
Huh?
It would seem hard to restrict sales to felons and the mentally unfit any further.
Unless I’m mistaken the proposed law would expand background checks.
I attended the hearing in support of S31 passage. S31 would be a state law requiring criminal background checks for most gun sales in Vermont and this law would align with the existing federal law. The intent is to prevent as many felons, drug trafficlers and domestic abusers as possible from obtaining a gun to use in
their criminal endeavors. It will not save all lives but it will save some lives that would have been lost to gun violence.
S31 would also take up the welcome mat Vermont has put out for drug traffickers who bring in the drugs and leave with the illegal guns they buy.
At the hearing people in opposition to S31 said that supporters were being paid by Michael Bloomberg, were telling lies and were not Vermonters. I can say I am not being paid, I am not lying, I am not deluded and I feel as if I have a right to feel safe and
live in Vermont since 1973 even if I wasn’t born here.
Whenever we want to make a law which is restrictive of the personal freedom of the people we should only do so if there is clearly a benefit which outweighs the cost of the loss of that freedom. S31 cannot be shown to have any benefit at all and therefor won’t outweigh the loss of freedom associated with it. Seems simple. It should not be passed.