Updated at 4:30 p.m.
Gov. Phil Scott vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have closed the “Charleston Loophole” and banned guns from hospitals.
In a letter to the Legislature, however, Scott outlined what he called a “path forward” to a version of the bill, S.30, that he said he would sign.
The vetoed legislation would have required a person to pass a background check before purchasing a firearm, whereas current law allows a transfer after three days regardless of the background check status. Scott said he would be comfortable with a compromise of seven days.
Under federal law, if a background check is not completed within 30 days, the process must start over.
“I believe going from three to effectively 30 days is excessive and unreasonable for law-abiding citizens who wish to purchase a firearm for their own personal safety or for other lawful and constitutionally protected purposes,” Scott said in his letter to the Legislature.
“A more reasonable standard would be to increase the current three-day waiting period to seven business days to allow the federal government additional time to resolve issues and make a final determination.”
At his weekly press conference on Tuesday, Scott elaborated on his position.
“The rest of the provisions in the bill, I don’t believe are necessary but they aren’t problematic,” he said, referring to the hospital firearm ban and more explicit protections for victims of domestic abuse already allowed under current statute.
“I am sensitive to the so-called ‘Charleston Loophole,’” he said. “I’m not sure if it’s really a loophole.”
Earlier this month, the Legislature gave final approval to S.30 after a back-and-forth between the Senate and House that led to significant changes to the bill. What initially had been introduced as a bill to ban guns in hospitals and other public places ultimately morphed into broader legislation amending the background check system.
Legislators were seeking to amend current law, which dictates that if a background check takes longer than three days, the seller may legally continue with the sale, regardless of the check’s status.
Supporters of the bill appear to have enough votes in the Senate to override a gubernatorial veto, but it’s not clear they have the two-thirds support necessary to clear the House. S.30 passed the 150-member House on a vote of 91-52.
The bill’s original sponsor, Sen. Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden, expressed frustration Tuesday with what he characterized as the governor moving the goalposts.
“I would have to call it a silly veto message,” Baruth said. “(Scott) claimed for years that he wanted to close the Charleston loophole. But now he’s saying, in effect, I demand only a slightly smaller Charleston loophole. And, you know, that’s not a logical position to take.”
Baruth said it was “a very hopeful sign” that the governor did not object to the bill’s other provisions. He suggested the Senate might consider drafting a bill that included everything in S.30 except the closure of the Charleston Loophole, taking the time to try to convince the governor to reconsider his position.
Senate President Pro Tempore Becca Balint, D-Windham, likewise condemned Scott’s decision.
“Our intent in the Senate was to truly close the loophole, so guns couldn’t get into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. The Governor’s proposal leaves it open,” she wrote in a statement. “This proposal could be particularly risky to victims of domestic violence, as it takes an average of close to 10 days for federal background check denials related to domestic violence.”
Rep. William Notte, D-Rutland City, who proposed the amendment to S.30 that would have closed the Charleston Loophole, seemed more keen to accept the governor’s terms.
“Given that what (Scott’s) requested is a fairly small change, my initial thought is, you know, why fight a greater battle than necessary? Let’s get a bill passed,” Notte said.
Notte also noted that Scott’s “path forward” looked similar to an amendment Rep. Patrick Brennan, R-Colchester, offered to the House Judiciary Committee.
Brennan said that he and Scott had “chatted” about S.30 and that he had explained the amendment to the governor.
“I had proposed a 15-day period, initially. And I had an amendment drafted to that effect. The committee kind of shot that down,” Brennan said. “It’s kind of looking like they should have accepted my amendment when they had the chance.”
