<![CDATA[Vermont]]>

Vermont governor doubted gun control bill was constitutional, but he just allowed it to take effect

June 2, 2023 by Cam Edwards Leave a Comment

For months, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott publicly expressed concern over a gun control bill that would not only expand the state’s “red flag” law and mandate new storage requirements but impose a 72-hour waiting period on all gun transfers in the state, with his spokesperson telling reporters less than a month ago that Scott ““has significant concerns about the constitutionality of the waiting period provision.”

Despite those statements, Scott has allowed HB230 to take effect by standing pat and doing nothing. Under Vermont law, unless the governor actually vetoes a bill, it will be enacted regardless of whether or not they sign it. Scott didn’t put pen to paper, but nevertheless the new restrictions are now in place.

Scott hearkened to “the relatively new legal landscape we find ourselves in,” saying in a statement Thursday afternoon, “My struggle with the overall bill lies in the fact that I, and all legislators, took an oath to ‘not do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution.’
“However, this matter is currently being taken up through constitutional legal tests across the country and will be decided in Federal Court. I would also not be surprised to see a Vermont entity challenge the constitutionality of this provision of the bill, as well,” Scott continued. “With this in mind, knowing that my constitutional concerns will be addressed through the legal process, I will allow H.230 to become law without my signature, and await the judicial branch to decide the fate of waiting periods.”
Quick to take aim at Scott for his decision Thursday afternoon was Vermont’s Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, which has in years past unsuccessfully sued the state over gun control legislation. In a written statement provided to VTDigger Thursday afternoon, the group’s president Chris Bradley said the federation “is deeply disappointed in the outcome of H.230, a law that has at least one completely unconstitutional provision.”
“The Courts will indeed decide this issue, and in the meantime things like an Oath of Office appear to be nothing more than a trivial inconvenience, as it certainly is not adhered to as a rule here in Vermont,” Bradley wrote.

Leaving it up to the courts to decide whether or not any or all of the provisions in HB 230 are constitutional is a milquetoast move on the part of the governor. If he wanted to wait and see what the federal judiciary ultimately has to say about waiting periods, he should (and could) have vetoed the bill and told lawmakers to come back after legal challenges in other states like California have been resolved. To express concerns about the constitutionality of a particular policy yet allow it to take effect is nonsensical, but I suspect that Scott’s motivation here is political and not policy-based.

HB 230 passed the legislature with a veto-proof majority, and Scott may very well have simply wanted to avoid a political tangle with Democratic lawmakers that he was almost certainly going to lose. Sometimes these fights are worth having, however, and I believe that’s the case when it comes to the infringing nature of these new anti-gun mandates.

Scott’s verbal objections to HB 230 are ultimately meaningless if he’s not going to back up his words with actions. By refusing to veto this bill while expressing skepticism about it’s legality Scott is abdicating his duty as a governor to protect the constitutional rights of Vermont residents, not to mention ensuring that taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted now that the state Attorney General will be defending the law from the inevitable court challenges. It’s always better to defeat a bad bill than to overturn a bad law, but I guess for Scott sometimes our fundamental civil rights just aren’t worth fighting for.

Vermont legislature approves gun control package including waiting periods on gun sales

May 5, 2023 by Cam Edwards Leave a Comment

Vermont’s Democrat-controlled legislature hasn’t taken steps to repeal the state’s permitless carry law (yet, anyway), but its taking a bite out of the Second Amendment rights of residents with a gun control package approved on Friday. The bill would not only establish a 72-hour waiting period on all gun sales in the state, but would expand the state’s “red flag” law to allow more individuals and officials to petition the courts for an Extreme Risk Protection Order as well as creating a brand new crime for “negligent firearms storage.”

Despite the passage of the legislation, however, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott has shown signs that he might veto the bill, with his spokesman telling reporters on Friday that the governor has “serious concerns about the constitutionality of the waiting period provision.”

Scott has already wielded his veto pen to strike down a 24-hour waiting period approved by lawmakers in 2019, saying at the time that the state had gone far enough on gun control.

Supporters of the legislation, called S.169, said the 24-hour waiting period approved by lawmakers earlier this year would have reduced suicide rates in Vermont by protecting residents from impulsive acts of self-harm.
Scott said Monday, however, that Vermont has already enacted numerous restrictions on gun ownership during his tenure. He said universal background checks, raising the legal age to purchase a gun to 21 years old, and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines — all of which Scott signed into law last year — address the supply-side of the gun-violence problem.
He also noted the passage last year of legislation that allows people to petition the courts to remove firearms from people who pose a danger to themselves or others, and a bill that allows police to remove guns from people cited for domestic violence.
“With these measures in place, we must now prioritize strategies that address the underlying causes of violence and suicide,” Scott said in a written statement announcing his veto. “I do not believe S.169 addresses these areas.”

If that was true back then it’s even more accurate today, and Scott should stick by his principles and veto the bill that’s even worse than the one he rejected four years ago. While Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both chambers, they fell one vote short of reaching that majority when the state Senate approved the gun control package earlier this month.

The bill doesn’t necessarily have an easy path to becoming law, even if it makes it through the Legislature. It’s among a handful of high-profile policies that could find themselves under Gov. Phil Scott’s veto pen.
“I just think it’s the constant erosion of individual rights — you know, I vetoed something that was close to that in the past, so we’ll see,” Scott said.
In an interview onVermont Edition on Monday, the governor specifically objected to the 72-hour waiting period for gun transfers because he believes it would violate the Second Amendment.
The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 19 to 9.

Democrats need 20 votes in the Senate to override any veto by Scott, and while Senate leadership would undoubtably twist arms and sweet-talk any reluctant members of their caucus in order to get to that magic number, the governor is right to be concerned about the impact that the waiting period would have on would-be gun buyers. Why should someone in fear for her life because of an abusive ex or a stalker be forced to sit on her hands and be defenseless for several days when she’s already passed a background check? As Scott said back in 2019, lawmakers should be addressing the underlying causes of violence and suicide, not treading over the fundamental civil rights of residents in the name of public safety.

Scott will face a lot of political heat if he does veto the gun control bill, and I would encourage Vermont gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to contact the governor’s office and urge him to stand on his principles and protect their Second Amendment rights. The fight over waiting periods in the Green Mountain State isn’t over yet, but the governor needs to hear from all those opposed to the Democrats’ latest anti-gun efforts now and in the days ahead.