[A] bill that generated hours of debate on far-reaching changes to the state’s gun laws cleared the House on Tuesday and is now heading back to the Senate, where its fate is unclear.
The legislation widens background checks to the private sales of firearms, raises the age to purchase a gun to 21, bans bump stocks, and sets a limit on magazine size.
It was passed after a grinding day that spread into night, full of moving parts on that legislation as well as other gun-related measures working their way through the Statehouse.
The House approved a third and final reading of S.55 by a vote of 89-54 after a debate that began around 2:30 p.m and stretched six hours to about 8:30 p.m.
The House Judiciary Committee started taking up the measure even earlier, around 9:30 a.m., as they considered a batch of proposed amendments to the legislation.
The full House gave preliminary approval to the legislation following 10 hours of debate on Friday. The debate Tuesday made a few more changes to the legislation.
The Senate passed S.55 earlier this month. However, that version of the legislation did not include two provisions passed in the House: the bump stocks ban and the magazine size limit.
Rep. Patrick Brennan, R-Colchester, said as the debate drew to a close he understood the youth movement pushing for added gun restrictions, but that the bill “does nothing whatsoever” to enhance school safety and security.
“I sympathize with the movement that’s out there, (the) students, I’m not unsympathetic to how they feel, but they’re walking around and talking about an issue they absolutely know nothing about, other than that they’re afraid, I get that,” he said.
“They’re talking about repealing the Second Amendment — ‘the Second Amendment is outdated, it’s obsolete,’” Brennan added. “These are kids who don’t even take civic classes in school because they’re not offered. They know nothing about the Second Amendment or the Constitution, that worries me.”
Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, a prime backer of the legislation, countered that he understood that the bill wasn’t going to solve all gun-related problems.
“But this bill does help us accomplish two goals,” he said. “It’s going to help keep firearms out of individuals who are dangerous to themselves or others, and it’s going to reduce the lethality of firearms. … I do believe this puts us in the right direction.”
Rep. Brian Savage, R-Swanton, said with the passage of S.55, 227 years of Vermont tradition has “just gone down the drain.”
He added, “We are on the path of having to change our state motto, ‘Freedom and Unity,’ as we are beginning to lose the means with which to ensure our freedom.”
Rep. Lori Houghton, D-Essex, spoke in support of the measure.
“This legislation may make purchasing a firearm a bit harder for some, but it won’t prevent a law-abiding citizen from purchasing or owning a firearm,” she said, adding, “And this legislation may allow our youth to focus on learning and not jumping at every sound they hear. I vote yes for that. I vote yes for life.”
The measure in the bill that limits the magazine size to 10 round of ammunition drew the loudest and longest debate Tuesday on the House floor.
Rep. Eileen Dickinson, R-St. Albans Town, offered an amendment to exempt manufacturers from the magazine limit. She pointed to the impact of that provision on Century International Arms, an arms manufacturer and dealer in Franklin County that employs more than 100 people.
“It’s important to protect jobs in the manufacturing sector,” Dickinson said. “I am offering this amendment in that spirit.”
The company, which is headquartered in Florida and deals in firearm-related devices, handguns and semi-automatic rifles, has said such a magazine limit provision would have a “significant impact” on its 200-employee operation in Vermont.
The amendment would allow companies such as Century Arms to continue to import, export and manufacture such magazines, provided they are transferred “in foreign or domestic commerce for delivery and possession outside Vermont.”
Economic arguments in favor of the measure irked Rep. Valerie Stuart, D-Brattleboro.
“This is about guns,” Stuart said. “We have seen what guns can do, I resent this.”
The amendment passed by a vote of 123-21.
LaLonde, who had proposed the 10-round magazine limit, offered an amendment Tuesday to increase that limit to 15 rounds for handguns, but keep it set at 10 rounds for long guns, with exceptions for those with levers or bolt action.
He said over the weekend he had received feedback on the legislation and, based on that, found the 10-round limit “too restrictive” for handguns.
The measure to increase that magazine limit to no more than 15 rounds for handguns passed on a voice vote.
Another amendment offered by Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, exempted guns used in shooting competitions from the magazine limit, with the provision sunsetting on July 1, 2019.
“If we adopt this we will not pull the rug out from under existing … competitions,” Donahue said, pointing out some have already been scheduled, with registrations taking place and tickets sold.
The amendment would allow out-of-state competitors to come into the state to compete in shooting competitions with magazines greater than the limit. Vermonters may keep magazines that are over the limit if they were purchased before the legislation comes into force.
The measure passed on a voice vote.
Earlier in Tuesday’s session, the House passed by a voice vote a measure that provides a “grace period” for gun shops to sell off their existing inventory of prohibited magazines and bump stocks, a device that speeds up the ability to fire.
Rep. Paul Poirier, I-Barre, proposed a measure calling for the state to buy any of that excess inventory that those shops can’t sell by the deadline, and then dispose of them.
“I think it’s a fairness to small businesses,” he said. “I don’t think it’s too much to ask.”
LaLonde countered that such a proposal presented a host of problems, including where the state would get the money to fund the initiative and determining fair market value of the items.
“This bill is not going to be stopped,” Poirier responded, adding that he is only trying to help businesspeople who built up stock not knowing of the coming legislation.
The proposed amendment failed 47-97.
Many of the provisions of S.55 that gained approval appeared to have little chance of passage or even being taken up for consideration earlier in the session.
However, after a mass shooting at a high school in Florida and a foiled school attack in Fair Haven, both last month, the issue of added gun restrictions became a priority for state leaders, including Republican Gov. Phil Scott.
What will happen to S.55 in the Senate is not known. The Senate will either need to concur with the additional provisions in the bill added in the House or send the legislation to a conference committee to work out the differences.
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that the panel will start taking testimony on S.55 as passed by the House Wednesday morning.
He said he would “probably” favor the appointment of a conference committee that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions. But, Sears added, there appears to widespread support for one of the changes the House made to the bill — the banning of bump stocks.
The limit on magazine size is another matter. Sears said he would listen to testimony from stakeholders who are scheduled to appear before his committee Wednesday before making up his mind about the measure.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday fit in a vote on S.211, known as the “red flag” bill, in between work on S.55.
The panel voted 11-0 to advance S.211 to the full House floor. That bill sets in place a civil process for law enforcement officers to temporarily seize a firearm from a person deemed a serious threat to themselves or others.
It also establishes a procedure for a court to extend that time. Under the Senate bill, that extended period would have run 60 days. The measure passed by the House Judiciary Committee called for a six-month period.
Both the House and Senate agreed to set the standard of “clear and convincing” evidence for a judge to apply at the hearing for the extended order.
S.211, which unanimously passed the Senate last month, now heads to the full House floor for consideration as early as Thursday.
Meanwhile, a bill that has already passed the House, H.422, known as the domestic violence bill, is expected to go before the full Senate on Thursday for consideration. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday voted 5-0 to advance that bill.
If S.221 gains preliminary approval in the Senate on Thursday and H.422 is endorsed by the House on the same day, both pieces of legislation would be up for final votes in each chamber on Friday.
Asked if he would support S.55 during his weekly press conference, which was held hours before the final vote in the House Tuesday night, Gov. Phil Scott said he had prioritized two other bills, S.221 and H.422.
“And then in regards to S.55 this is something, there are many pieces of that bill that I am in agreement with,” the governor said. “So I hope they will do whatever they can to make sure that we protect any businesses in Vermont and make sure it makes sense for Vermonters.”
Early on Tuesday, a newly organized group of gun rights advocates held a rally and press conference to oppose S.55. Under the name Vermont Law Enforcement Against Gun Control, members of law enforcement organizations, along with lawmakers from the House and Senate, said that the provisions in the current bill will not protect students from future school shootings.
Dennis Amsden, a game warden and gunsmith from St. Johnsbury, organized the group on Facebook last weekend. Amsden said the amendments to S.55 are “completely ineffective, and will violate the constitutional rights of Vermont citizens to self defense and to bear arms.”
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, and Rep. Janssen Willhoit, R-St. Johnsbury, both oppose the new restrictions and made remarks in support of the group’s stance. Aaron Cochran, chief of the Hardwick Police Department, appeared in uniform and said that he helped organize the effort because it would protect Vermonters’ rights.
Critics have expressed concern over the group’s use of law enforcement affiliations to rally opposition to the bill. On Sunday, shortly after the Facebook page began circulating, Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover, wrote to Public Safety Commissioner Thomas Anderson and Vermont State Police Col. Matthew Birmingham requesting that law enforcement heads publicly clarify their departments’ relationship with the group.
“The public could easily misconstrue this page as representing Vermont Law Enforcement in general and not individual citizens,” Sibilia wrote. “It’s over the line.”
Neither department issued a public response.
Amsden said Tuesday that his group’s members did not intend to represent their agencies or departments. “We are a group of individuals who happen to be Vermont law enforcement officers,” he said. “We’re here on our own.”
Michael Dougherty contributed to this report.