A new VTDigger/Castleton Polling Institute survey shows overwhelming public support for universal background checks on private gun sales, yet legislation to do just that has stalled in Montpelier.
Seventy-seven percent of respondents said they would support a law that would require all gun sales, except for those between relatives, to go through a criminal background check, while only 20 percent said they would oppose such a law.
Support among women was 86 percent and among Democrats was 93 percent. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans said they would support universal background checks. There was no measured demographic category in which the majority wasn’t supportive.
The poll of 700 Vermonters was conducted Feb. 9-24 (see sidebar for methodology).
If Vermont could put laws before voters using ballot initiatives as is an option in most states, universal background checks would likely become law, according to the poll results.
For Ann Braden, executive director of Gun Sense Vermont, the results, which closely mirror polling her organization did in April, illustrates a disconnect between “what Vermonters want and what lawmakers are willing to take up.”
Eric Davis, a retired Middlebury College political science professor, says the disconnect is the result of an extremely vocal minority that opposes new gun laws with an intensity that is unmatched by broad, but more tepid, public support. Gun rights advocates write letters, pack committee rooms and public hearings. That makes it difficult or uncomfortable for politicians to oppose their position, he said.
Changing that dynamic will take time, according to Braden.
“I see this not as a static moment, but part of an arc, and we’re definitely on the path of changing this issue and the way it’s discussed,” she said.
Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, says he doesn’t agree that there’s popular support for background checks, and he took issue with the way the poll question was phrased. The question posed by interviewers was: “Would you support or oppose a law that would require all gun sales, except for those between relatives, to go through a criminal background check?”
“The way the question is posed it doesn’t offer an alternative,” he said, suggesting that the poll should have asked whether respondents support better enforcement of existing laws. Asked to pick between the two, Vermonters, whom Hughes described as an “independent bunch,” would likely favor better enforcement.
In addition, he said the question oversimplifies the issue. For example, it doesn’t explain that the parties to a private sale would be required to pay a fee for a federally licensed firearms dealer to conduct the background check.
There’s no economic motivation for a firearms dealer to participate, because it would increase their insurance costs and “compete with their own stock,” meaning why would they help you sell a gun that’s sitting on their rack, Hughes said.
Senate Pro Tempore Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, introduced S.31 this year that would have required universal background checks for gun sales. That bill has since been scrapped, but its other two sections requiring the state to report some mentally ill people to the FBI database, and creating state laws to mirror federal gun laws, could still pass this session.
Campbell says it wasn’t gun rights groups that sunk universal background checks, but rather opposition from law enforcement and two other top Democrats.
“What I find to be tremendously unfortunate is we had members of the law enforcement community come out against the background checks at the public hearing and privately,” he said.
Many law enforcement officers believe that background checks were “pure gun control” and infringe on constitutional rights, which Campbell said isn’t the case. The final blow came when Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, chair of the Judiciary Committee, told Campbell background checks were unlikely to get the necessary votes there.
“Sears made his decision as to cutting that loose, and I was really quite displeased,” Campbell said.
Sears said he’s not surprised by the polling, and he is not concerned that he is out of step with his constituents on the issue.
“If you do all your lawmaking by polling you really aren’t doing your job,” Sears said, adding that if he strictly voted based on how a majority of his constituents felt, he might not have been able support civil unions.
Sears said he listens to testimony, examines the research and uses personal observation when considering legislation, especially bills that come before his committee. That doesn’t always lead to popular decisions, he acknowledged.
“Am I out of step with my constituents on the polling data? Probably, but if I can articulate a response to my constituents who ask me why I’m in a particular position I feel more comfortable,” he said.
He visited a firearms dealer when the bill was introduced, and that’s when he became concerned about how universal background checks would work in practice.
If asked by a constituent, Sears said he would articulate his opposition as follows: “Let’s say my rifle is worth $50, I’m going to give it to my neighbor and he’s going to go to my local gun shop and pay $45, what kind of gift have I given him? And will we then do that, what is the likelihood of us doing what it says we have to? And then do we want to make a criminal out of my neighbor?”
Gun safety advocates like Braden say they have shifted their focus to the other two provisions, which Sears and his committee may pass as standalone legislation.
But those could run into trouble when they land on the desk of another prominent Democrat, Gov. Peter Shumlin.
Shumlin has said repeatedly that Vermont doesn’t need any new gun laws, which could ultimately mean his veto pen will be the highest hurdle for the two provisions still in play.
