[J]ust hours after a public hearing on a gun bill he is sponsoring, Sen. Philip Baruth, D/P-Chittenden, said he is willing to drop a portion of that legislation.
“I have heard a lot of testimony this week that leads me to believe that probably safe storage is not ready to move,” he said during a meeting Wednesday of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“It seems to me,” Baruth added, “the better focus for the committee is on the waiting period rather than safe storage.”
Baruth is sponsoring S.22, a bill that includes safe storage requirements for firearms and also calls for establishing a 48-hour waiting period for gun purchases.
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, the panel’s chair, said during the Wednesday session that he was not in support of that safe storage provision of the bill. But, Sears said, he was still uncertain on his position on the remainder of the legislation.
“I’m not sure how I’m going to vote on a waiting period at this point,” he added.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Baruth is a member, held a public hearing on S.22 on Tuesday evening on the campus of Vermont Technical College in Randolph.
The hearing drew about 300 people, with a majority of those testifying voicing opposition to S.22, saying it would erode their constitutional rights and limit their ability to protect themselves if they were in immediate danger.
Supporters of the legislation counter that the legislation protects those who may be considering “impulsive” acts, such as suicide, from accessing firearms.
It’s still unclear if the bill, pared down to a waiting period provision, has the support to make it out of the five-member committee.
While Baruth, a member of the panel, is in favor of it, another committee member, Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, said during the Wednesday session he is opposed to the waiting period provision.
“Do we have a 48-hour waiting period, a 36, a 24, a 10 day?” Benning asked. “How do you predict ahead of time what’s somebody who is determined to end their lives would be the proper obstacle placed in front of them?”
He then added, “At the same time we’re doing that, we’re now literally telling those people who might exercise their constitutional right for self-protection that they can’t exercise that right unless there is a waiting period of whatever time we determine.”
Regarding the safe storage requirement, Benning spoke of a rifle he recently inherited from a relative who died. He said that rifle will hang over the door frame at his home as a way to remember that relative, which would put him in violation of the safe storage provision.
“I’ve really reached the point where I say, ‘Come on and arrest me,’” he said. “This is going too far.”
“Do we have waiting periods for anything else that one might buy?” Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham and a committee member, asked.
“Good question,” Sears replied.
“This is a constitutional right, it’s not just purchasing something,” Benning added.
Even with Baruth willing to pull out that safe storage requirement part of the legislation, the fate of the bill’s remaining provision — the waiting period — still remains in doubt.
Sears, the panel’s chair, and White both said they are undecided on the waiting period provision.
“I’m not a slam dunk at all on this,” White said. “I haven’t decided at all.”
Sen. Alice Nitka, D-Windsor, another panel member, said after Wednesday’s meeting she is not yet disclosing her position on the measure.
Asked when she would reveal her position, Nitka said, “I’m not going to until it comes up for a vote.”
The bill is expected to be up for discussion again in the committee later this week.
The safe storage portion of the bill would have required a person to “not store or otherwise leave a firearm outside his or her immediate possession or control without having first securely locked the firearm in a safe storage depository or, by use of a tamper-resistant mechanical lock gun lock or other device appropriate to that weapon, rendered it incapable of being fired.”
A violation would have carried a penalty of up to one year in jail or a fine of not more than $500.
Opponents of that safe storage requirement speaking at the forum Tuesday evening questioned whether it was enforceable, with several people saying if it were passed they would not follow it.
“I kind of agree with a lot of the testimony last night, how do you enforce that type of law unless something tragic happens?” Sears said Wednesday. “And if a child accidentally hurt themselves would you really want to prosecutor that mother and father?”
Committee members discussed whether it would be possible to prosecute such a case under child cruelty or neglect laws. That would likely be up to each county’s state’s attorney, Baruth said, which could result in different views.
“A state’s attorney might say, ‘That’s not neglect, that’s not endangering a child, that’s a tragic accident and I’m not going to prosecute it,’” he said of using neglect or child endangerment laws to address such cases.
