Posted on 04/12/2018 7:51:19 AM PDT by Simon Green
Among both cheers and jeers, Gov. Phil Scott approved a series of new gun restrictions Wednesday in a public bill signing.
Scott, a Republican who is avowedly a supporter of the Second Amendment, signed bills H.422, S.221, and S.55, into law on the steps of the Statehouse in Montpelier, surrounded by a crowd divided over the issue of gun politics.
The measures would remove guns from those thought to be “at risk” and from those arrested or cited on domestic assault charges as well as place restrictions on magazine capacities, bump stocks and gun sales to those under age 21.
“I support the Second Amendment, but I had to ask myself, ‘are we truly doing everything we can to make our kids and communities safer?'” Scott said. “Because if we’re at a point where our kids are afraid to go to school, and parents are afraid to put them on a bus; or police don’t have the tools they need to protect victims of violence; or families can’t step in to prevent a loved one from taking their own life; then who are we?”
H.422, which lawmakers passed with unanimous support, speeds up removals of firearms from those charged or cited in the state over some domestic violence or abuse accusations.
S.221 adds a mechanism to Vermont law to allow for so-called “extreme risk protection orders” which would allow family members or authorities of a person thought to be a threat to themselves or others to petition the court for an order to seize any guns possessed by the individual pending a hearing.
The most controversial of the three measures, S.55, barely passed the legislature. It will restrict magazine capacity to 15 rounds on handguns and 10 rounds on rifles, ban bump stocks and raise the age to buy guns in Vermont to 21. Magazines already in circulation will be grandfathered while adults 18-to-20 can still purchase rifles and shotguns if they have had military or law enforcement training or have passed a hunter’s education course. There is also a carve-out for Vermont-based gun makers as long as they market their magazines outside of the state.
Feeling betrayed, gun rights advocates labeled Scott, who was A-rated by the NRA in his last election campaign, as “Flip-flop Phil” and even “turncoat” and “traitor” during the bill signing event. Some, dressed in hunter’s safety orange, came complete with toy swords affixed to their back in reference to the Governor’s actions. During his 2016 campaign, Scott repeatedly said he was not in favor of changing any of the state’s gun laws.
“We see beyond the propaganda that attempts to portray any positive aspects of S.55 and see it as being completely ineffectual at its purported purpose of making schools, or anyone else, safer,” said the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. “The only reason to pass ‘we did something’ legislation that virtually all law enforcement indicated was unenforceable and therefore completely ineffective is to create a framework for subsequent laws that will likewise be ineffective and unenforceable, but ever more restrictive.”
On the other side of the coin, Scott’s move was praised by both local and national gun control groups of all stripes.
“Vermont has long had some of the most lax measures on gun safety, but today is more than a step in the right direction – it’s a leap,” said Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign.
Welp. Vermont has officially joined the AntiGun Northeast.
We can demote the Governor to an F rating now.
It has been a Constitutional Carry state forever. I guess that's "lax".
Gun laws. Keeping society safe from law abiding citizens all day, every day.
Nope. No buts. Either you do or you don't. You, Phil, don't.
Liar.
The measures would remove guns from those thought to be “at risk” and from those arrested or cited on domestic assault charges as well as place restrictions on magazine capacities, bump stocks and gun sales to those under age 21.
Typical compromised LIB loser.
Not good but not really terrible as Vermont has lowest gun onwership in America. Besides the word “Vermont” says it all. This is just show biz by the token Republican in the state.
He just wants to infringe on it a little.
As soon as any Vermont Republican in any other State is a left wing looney. Neither side in Vermont wants the GOP in control of anything in Washington.
So we should change the minimum age of enlistment into the military to 21?
Facts you didn’t know about the AR15.
An AR15 becomes instantly safe when loaded with a 10 round magazine, because every AR15 misses with the first 10 shots and it takes an hour and a half to reload...
Sadly the endless David Hogg browbeating appears to be working.
Women and children are our rulers.
These SOB POS in Vermont govt should be REMINDED HOW, IN WHAT FASHION, AND FROM WHENCE THE GREAT GREEN MOUNTAIN STATE OF VERMONT WAS BORN!!
“THE MASSACRE AT WESTMINSTER, VERMONT
On the northerly end of the lower street, on the brow of the terrace overlooking the upper street, occurred the first organized resistance to the oppression of King George’s tyrannical courts, and here was shed the first blood of the Revolution, March 13, 1775. The story has often been told, how a few determined men met there and took possession of the courthouse to prevent the session of next day’s court, and the officers of the court attacked them, and that one man was killed and another fatally injured. The attempt of the sturdy citizens was successful, for the session of court was not held, nor was it ever held again in this county under the rule of the king.”
http://www.vermontgenealogy.com/history/massacre_at_westminster_vermont.htm
________________________________________
THE WESTMINSTER MASSACRE
The Westminster Massacre of March 13, 1775 is viewed by some as the first battle of the American Revolution.
http://www.vermonthistory.org/freedom_and_unity/new_frontier/massacre.html
HISTORY TENDS TO REPEAT ITSELF
“At risk” is way too vague.”
One day, it will be acceptable to confiscate your guns if you’re “at risk”. The fact that you own guns will mean that you are obviously “at risk”.
The NE and CA, OR and WA should not be considered part of the United States.
Letter I wrote to in response to Sen. Shaheen’s letter addressing my concerns after the Sandy Hook incident.
Looks like I need to update it and resubmit it.
I sent a note to one of my US Senators concerning the sanctimonious noises being made by the usual suspects concerning “gun control”. Here is my redacted response to her reply, commenting directly on her reply statements.
On 01/24/2013 05:39 PM, Senator Shaheen wrote:
>
> We also need to consider measures such as limiting magazine clip
> capacity and requiring better background checks.
Please tell me how limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and allowing government bureaucracies to accumulate huge data bases on them, would have in any way hindered or prevented attacks such as the one at Sandy Hook in Newtown, CT. The primary reason for the carnage in these instances was that there was nobody on site properly prepared to deal with such an aggressor.
Emotional responses to corner case incidents do not foster good law.
> I am a strong supporter of an individual’s right to bear arms for
> hunting and self-defense, and I believe our tradition of gun
> ownership can be respected while also ensuring that our cities and
> towns, schools and public buildings remain safe.
How are your Senate office buildings made safe?
How are posh private schools made safe?
How are the airports made safe?
How are banks made safe?
They are made safe by armed guards.
It is hypocritical and cynical for those who work in buildings protected by armed guards, and who send their children to private schools protected by armed guards, to relegate “the masses” and the children thereof to “gun-free zones”, where they are sitting ducks for any aggressor.
It appears that the politicians and rich entertainers, including the so-called “news” media, are saying to us, the hoi-poloi;
Armed security for me and mine,
Gun-free zones for thee and thine.
We can’t afford to hire armed security. We must be our own armed security, and we must be able to defend ourselves with weaponry comparable or superior to that wielded by those who would harm us.
We are certain that the proposed “gun-control” efforts will have little or no effect on the criminals and terrorists, but rather diminish the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against such threats.
> I have supported these rights throughout my career, and I will
> continue to be an advocate for responsible firearm use while a
> member of the U.S. Senate.
>
We already use and store our firearms responsibly. There are already scores of laws on the books to deal with responsible usage and storage of weapons. Murder and assault are already illegal in every jurisdiction. No new legislation will enhance the situation even marginally.
Perhaps we should consider the overall degradation of our society.
We have become a culture that extolls death and violence.
We exalt the coarse, the crude and the corrupt.
“Gangsta” rappers promote violence and misogyny using the basest of profanities and epithets.
Video games and Hollywood purvey the imposition violent death on others, complete with the most gut-wrenching and bloody scenes of graphic murder and mayhem as “entertainment”.
I don’t believe there is any legislation that can fix that, either. It’s much deeper than just saying, “We’re going to outlaw this.” We need to change the hearts of the people to eschew it.
We are asking you to use your power as a Senator responsibly.
Respectfully submitted, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.