The legislation, H.422, would let police officers seize firearms and hold them for up to five days when they make an arrest or citation related to domestic violence.
Victims advocates say the measure would get firearms out of the home at a time when statistics show domestic violence victims are at a heightened risk of serious injury from the abuser.
But opponents say the bill goes too far, violating constitutional rights to bear arms and to due process.
After prolonged debate, the House voted 78 to 67 to accept a version of the bill proposed by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill then advanced to third reading on a voice vote. It will be up for final House approval Wednesday. If it passes, it will move to the Senate.
Rep. Chip Conquest, D-Wells River, presented the bill on the floor Tuesday. He fielded questions from fellow House members about the mechanics of the proposal, including the definition of domestic violence, where firearms must be located for police to seize them, and the storage of guns when they are being temporarily held.
“The more you dig, the more problems you find, and I’m not the first one to say that,” Brennan said.
Brennan saw significant constitutional issues, particularly violations of due process rights. He charged that the legislation was passed out of committee “hastily.”
“I can’t support this bill,” Brennan said. “It’s a step in the wrong direction.”
Rep. Oliver Olsen, I-Londonderry, also raised concerns that the legislation violates constitutional guarantees of due process.
“As well-intentioned as this may be, there are some unintended consequences, and I do fear we are sliding down a very slippery path here,” Olsen said.
Other House members argued that the measure could lead to registration of guns, or disarm domestic violence victims of weapons they may use for their own protection.
Rep. Job Tate, R-Mendon, said he is “very interested” in protections for Vermonters in domestic violence situations. He said firearms could be part of that.
“I don’t know about you, but I know that down in the Marble Valley our women know how to handle themselves, frankly, with a firearm,” Tate said. “You could make a very real argument that taking … a firearm from a home could actually make a woman or a victim less safe.”
“I’ve also heard that if women are armed and they’re strong women, once again blaming the women, then we, then we can defend ourselves,” O’Sullivan said.
“If you take that to the next logical step, Madam Speaker, you’re suggesting that if I’m a strong woman in an abusive situation and I have a handgun I should go blow away the abuser in front of my children,” she said.
O’Sullivan and others argued that the focus of the legislation is public safety.
“This is not a slippery slope,” O’Sullivan said. “This is keeping families safe. This is keeping people alive.”
Many proponents of the bill argued that the five-day holding period would provide a cooling-off period when emotions are high.
Rep. Sarah Copeland Hanzas, D-Bradford, told about a former legislative page from her district, whose mother was killed in an abusive situation. She urged lawmakers to support the bill.
“We need to stop fooling ourselves that peaceful, serene and idyllic Vermont doesn’t need to join with the 18 other states who already allow for removal of weapons at the scene of domestic violence,” she said.
