[A] day after a House lawmaker proposed an amendment calling for sweeping restrictions on firearms, gun-rights supporters sat just feet away from him and voiced their strong opposition to his proposal as well as others.
“You blame the tool, when the problem is the person wielding that tool,” Chris Bradley, president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, said. “For the acts of the deranged few, the vast majority suffer ‘restrictions.’”
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Bradley and other representatives of Vermont gun-rights groups used terms such as unconstitutional, unenforceable and, in some cases, nonsensical, when discussing the bill as well as the proposed amendment. The committee also heard calls for a public hearing on the gun legislation under consideration to allow more voices to be heard.
“I want to be known as somebody who stood up for this and didn’t let this roll over me,” Bill Moore, of the Vermont Traditions Coalition, told committee members. “We are going to fight, I’m telling you. We’re going to fight in a civil manner.”
The panel has been hearing testimony this week about S.55, a bill passed earlier this month in the Senate that includes provisions that expand background checks to include the private sale of firearms and raises the age to purchase a gun to 21 in Vermont.
Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, proposed an amendment Wednesday to that bill that includes several more changes.
The additional provisions include bans on assault-style firearms and high-capacity magazines, defined in the amendment as a device capable of holding more than 10 bullets.
LaLonde’s proposed amendment also calls for a 10-day waiting period, after a background check, for the transfer of a firearm, and a requirement that firearms be kept safely stored.
The proposal exempts firearms and magazines legally owned before the legislation would go into effect on July 1, 2018.
The panel took no action Thursday on S.55 or the proposed amendment. The gun-rights advocates who spoke urged the committee to slow down what they termed as a rush to pass gun legislation.
The committee agenda stated a possible vote could have taken place Thursday, or even Friday. By late Thursday morning, Rep. Chip Conquest, D-Wells River, vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said a vote wouldn’t take place until next week at the earliest.
Gun legislation leaped to center stage this legislative session, following the arrest of 18-year-old Jack Sawyer of Poultney last month.
Police say they foiled a plot by Sawyer to shoot up and cause “mass casualties” at Fair Haven Union High School, where Sawyer had been a student.
The chilling details of the alleged plot detailed in a police affidavit has prompted several pieces of gun legislation in Statehouse.
It has even led Gov. Phil Scott, who previously had said he didn’t see a need for more gun restrictions, to say that everything was “on the table.” The governor did not specify what he would support and left the details up to lawmakers.
The activity on gun legislation in the Statehouse coincides with calls across the country for stricter gun laws following February’s mass shooting at a Florida high school last month.
Testifying to the House Judiciary Committee against LaLonde’s amendment on Thursday, Bradley, of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, ticked off a series of questions he had about proposals.
At one point, Bradley asked, “A person decides to move to Vermont because of its current ‘liberal gun laws’. He owns a large number of high-capacity magazines, which he ‘lawfully possessed’ prior to July 1, 2018, in the state he previously lived in. He is not in jeopardy of violating this law, correct?”
LaLonde’s amendment does not list models that would be banned as assault-style firearms. Instead, it lays out characteristics of firearms that would make them prohibited, such as a semi-automatic shotgun that has a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with a thumbhole stock also would qualify as a prohibited firearm, according to the amendment, which was a provision that drew another question from Bradley.
“To the best of the committee’s knowledge, has the fact that a firearm had a ‘thumbhole stock’ ever played any part in any of the violent acts that have spawned this and similar laws?” Bradley asked.
At another point, Bradley asked, “Magazines are not serial numbered. How would it be determined as to when a magazine was built?”
He called such a provision unenforceable.
Rather than provide an immediate answer to the questions, LaLonde, seated just to the right of Bradley, told him that he would be reviewing them and get back to him.
“I’m going to go through these questions and make sure I give you the right answer,” LaLonde said.
As Bradley continued to pose more questions, Conquest told Bradley, “I’m happy to have you point out (provisions) that seem to be nonsensical.”
Then, Conquest said of the proposed legislation, “I think the answer is, it’s based on other states, and we’re happy to have you tell us why it doesn’t make sense to use that as a model.”
“I would actually suggest the reverse, sir,” Bradley told Conquest. “You’re proposing something that is going to become law, I’m simply asking why.”
“That’s fine, I’m just pointing out, if you want an answer, that’s the answer,” Conquest replied. “If you want to ask a rhetorical question, that’s fine too.”
“Thank you,” Bradley responded.
The gun-rights advocates also testified against the 10-day waiting period and the firearms storage provision of LaLonde’s amendment, saying it would make it difficult for people to defend themselves, especially in emergency situations.
Bradley said a person under threat seeking to buy a firearm could be in danger if made to wait several days before taking a gun home.
“Ten days could be nine days too long,” he said.
Maj. John Merrigan, Vermont State Police field force commander, also testified late Thursday afternoon. Merrigan, who worked in the state police’s special investigations unit, spoke of his experience investigating people involved in trading drugs and guns.
“I once traded a submachine gun for cocaine,” Merrigan said of one such undercover probe. “He didn’t get to keep it.”
Asked by Conquest, the committee chair, what expanded background checks would do to address that, Merrigan said he didn’t see it making much of a difference.
“They’re not following any of our rules,” Merrigan said. “Everything is happening behind closed doors, if you will.”
The committee is expected to take additional testimony on the bill Friday.
