But the real question is whether Phil Scott will support it, he admits
By Guy Page
On Tuesday, the Democratic caucus of the Vermont Senate met on the State House steps for a self-congratulatory press conference – “celebrating their legislative wins,” a party press release said – and then convened to the cafeteria for a convivial lunch of speeches and story-telling.
As the gathering wound down, Sen. Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden County) strolled past where I was finishing up Tuesday’s issue of the Vermont Daily Chronicle. (The State House cafeteria has great wireless, good food, and the occasional Public Figure like Baruth appearing out of nowhere for a question and a quote.)
With the awful slaughter in Texas on everyone’s mind, I asked Baruth if the Senate will propose more gun control legislation next year. I wasn’t taking notes, so everything from here on is from memory. Below is the gist of the conversation.
Sure thing, the Legislature’s leading gun control advocate said. Vermonters can expect meaningful gun safety legislation to be proposed and discussed next year. But the real question in his mind is this – will Gov. Phil Scott support it?
Scott’s record shows he supports gun legislation in one session, then does nothing for another 2-3 sessions, Baruth said. Will 2023 be a Do-Nothing or a Sign-Something, from the gun control (or to use Baruth’s terminology, gun safety) point of view?
Making the fairly safe assumption that Phil Scott is re-elected in November, only Phil Scott knows the answer to that question.
What’s perhaps most interesting is that Phil Baruth, the Legislature’s acknowledged leader in gun control legislation, admits that Phil Scott has the final say. A glance at Scott’s 2021-22 veto record (nine of 13 vetoes sustained) reveals the truth behind Baruth’s words.
The Legislative Majority proposes, Phil Scott disposes. Most of the time.
But that balance is, of course, a highly fluid proposition. This November, voters will replace the unprecedented number of lawmakers not seeking re-election. Will they keep the Democratic/Progressive supermajority, strengthen it, or eliminate it? A few seats changing from D to R or vice-versa could make a huge difference.