You can’t
turn on the TV news, open a newspaper, or visit a news website without hearing
of incidents of gun violence on a near daily basis. Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee is
holding hearings on reinstituting an assault weapons ban. Wayne Lapierre, president of the National
Rifle Association, calls for armed guards in all of our schools. State Senator Philip Baruth introduces a bill
to ban assault weapons in Vermont and quickly retracts it after a flurry of opposition
by Vermont gun enthusiasts. The
political climate in Vermont touching all things guns is a “third rail” that
all politicians fear not only because of the long traditions of hunting and
sport shooting, but because of the visceral reaction any talk of regulation
illicits among gun owners.
However,
despite this fear of reprisal, some members of the Vermont House, including
myself, have dared to introduce a bill, H.124, that seeks to improve the safety
of the citizens of Vermont while respecting the right of responsible citizens
to own a firearm. The introduction of
H.124 has not unexpectedly drawn a flurry of emails and phone calls to the
sponsors from across the state opposing the bill. In this article I will explain the provisions
of the bill and the reasons for them.
First, let
me point out that I support the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership by
law-abiding citizens. The bill does not
take away or infringe on that right. It is primarily focused on firearms safety,
both to insure that firearms do not get into the hands of people who shouldn’t
have them, and that those who do own them use them responsibly. The bill:
- Proposes to prohibit large capacity magazines
(holding more than 10 rounds). This is the most controversial section but
it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not these magazines pose a
public safety hazard. On behalf of
the many Vermonters who are outraged at the unprecedented number of mass
killings in 2012 (and we are off to a rousing start in 2013), we need to
ask the question and do our due diligence in investigating this issue.
- Requires background checks on firearms purchased at
gun shows. IF it is true that “guns
don’t kill people, people do,” then we need to do all we can to keep guns
out of the hands of the wrong people like criminals. Vermonters are generally responsible gun
owners. But a criminal from NY City
or Boston or even Montreal can come to Vermont to buy guns when they would
legally be prohibited from doing so otherwise. Vermont is not an island.
- Puts into state statute the federal prohibitions on
firearms possession. This includes:
felons, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, domestic
violence offenders, and persons legally judged to be a danger to
themselves or others. Our state and
local law enforcement officers have no authority under state law to
confiscate firearms prohibited by federal law. They can hold a person but
need to call the federal authorities like the ATF or FBI in order to
further detain and/or charge the offender.
- Requires a course on safe procedures for carrying a
concealed firearm. Just as we
require a test to obtain a driver’s license to demonstrate the ability to
safely operate a motor vehicle, we want to ensure that anyone carrying a
gun in public areas knows how and when to use it without endangering
others.
- Requires the Vermont Department of Mental Health to
report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NCIC) System
persons legally judged to be a danger to themselves or others. This would prevent them from purchasing
a firearm outside of Vermont.
- Repeals the prohibition on sale or use of gun
silencers (suppressors.) Vermont is 1 of 7 states that does not allow
silencers. This proposal is consistent with firearms safety. Silencers or suppressors not only
protect hearing, they also help prevent injuries to other parts of the
face and neck. This provision may also help abate noise from firing
ranges. It does not prevent the state from issuing rules prohibiting the
use of silencers while hunting.
Like any other bill, this one will be vetted in committee and will probably undergo some changes. Some provisions may not survive in the final version. In my opinion, these are reasonable requirements that enhance public safety without infringing on the 2nd Amendment. All of these provisions have passed the test of constitutionality in other jurisdictions. In spite of that, H.125 has aroused vocal opposition. I hope this article will lead to civil and respectful discussion in our community and will prompt supporters of the bill as well as opponents to contact me or their own Representative with their opinion. As a society we should not fear to discuss ways in which we can lessen the opportunities for gun violence that claims more than 11,000 victims each year in the United States.
Related: WCAX Investigates: Guns and Drugs
