Congress candidates respond to S30 veto

by Guy Page

Democratic candidate for Congress Becca Balint of Brattleboro sees nothing good in Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of S30, this year’s gun control bill. On the other hand, Republican candidate Ericka Redic of Burlington applauds Scott’s veto – and says Balint unfairly maligns gun purchasers.

““Fundamentally, this bill is about keeping guns out of the hands of people with histories of domestic abuse or other dangerous behavior. I’m surprised Governor Scott wouldn’t support that,” Balint said in a Feb. 22 campaign statement.

In a campaign statement released today, Redic said she supports the Governor’s veto of bill S30 because all Vermonters have the right and deserve the ability to protect themselves and their families.

Redic added: “Balint seems to think the only people who purchase guns are criminals or domestic abusers. She wants to take away a woman’s ability to protect herself and her family from domestic violence. At a time when Senator Balint is calling to defund the police, and prosecutors and judges are refusing to keep violent criminals behind bars, handcuffing a woman’s right to protect herself is unconscionable.”

“The government’s first responsibility is the safety of its citizens. We want to provide a mechanism for rehabilitation of people who commit crimes, but not at the expense of safety and justice for the victims,” Redic said.

Balint, the Vermont Senate President, explained the Senate wanted to close the so-called “Charleston Loophole” that she says allowed Dylan Roof to commit mass murder at an African-American church. “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. 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.”

She also promised she won’t give up on gun restrictions for this session. “I’m discussing next steps with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House,” Balint said. “I will keep fighting for all the protections we’ve put in place. We know Vermonters want to see these sensible efforts to prevent gun violence.”

Balint faces Lt. Gov. Molly Gray and fellow Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale in the Democratic primary for U.S. Congress later this year. At present, Redic is the only announced Republican candidate. Vermont’s lone House seat is open because Peter Welch is running for U.S. Senate.

Categories: politics

Tagged as: , ,

12 replies »

  1. And that is why Congress Becca Balint wont’ be getting a lot of votes. It’s OUR right to own guns. Does she really think the one’s who commit crimes are going to follow the law? Do they now esp in Vermont, with issuing a citation to appear in court for almost every crime committed? When is Vermont going to back law enforcement with JUST laws for the ‘citizens’ of Vermont?

  2. I will vote for whom ever is willing
    to stand up and fight for our constitutional rights and freedoms .Any sane persons knows the lawless get guns despite the law. .The only people it affects are the responsible arm bearers and law abiding citizens . Any one that doesn’t understand needs to check their American allegiance or better yet Go live in a communist country for a few years and see how you feel about it then .

  3. Senator Balint says “…so guns couldn’t get into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.” “…sensible efforts to prevent gun violence.” How do folks striving for good sense…good policy, produce such a delusional network? The tragedy is that this failed vision has broad currency among our policy makers.

  4. As the last resort to prevent violence upon our law-abiding citizens, the great equalizer is to become proactive and direct gun self-defense violence upon the perpetrator before you become the victim. Not the outcome anyone would like to have but breaking and entering an occupied dwelling is a felony and is one of the most serious crimes on the books. Thank God we have more support for citizens than we have for our police. Sad but true. We will be supporting Redic unless she becomes a RINO

  5. balint’s fear-mongering is just tired old rhetoric, she seems to be parroting bernie.
    Lest she forget, there are red-flag laws now in Vermont. These laws have not been challenged for their constitutionality, but I’m sure she would be the first to demand their use, should S.265 become law. I would think that a legislator whom is truly concerned about public safety would propose legislation to direct the various State’s Attorney to prosecute individuals for crimes involving public safety, not pander to their base about adding questionable laws that eliminate due process.
    Ms. balint, there is a roadmap of what is expected of you in your role as a legislator here in Vermont. Please click the link below, print it out and read- It’s simple language and easy to understand. Articles 1 and 18 apply to you, there are important concepts in Articles 9,10,11,13 and 16 that concern the validity of S.30. Please work to get your current job right before moving on to a different position. We can no longer accept the “Peter principle” from our elected leaders.
    I would bet that Ms. Redic has both read and understands these Articles, and perhaps is more able and willing to defend their meaning.


  6. It is disturbing when elected officials who have no personal experience and know absolutely nothing about farming, or hunting, or construction…make laws regulating such things. This is especially true about gun ownership and use. Liberals typically go by the philosophical arguments regarding guns and self defense spewed out by CNN, VPR etc. They tend to live in nice neighborhoods and lead charmed lives and maybe have never had an uninvited intruder forcefully enter their home in the dead of night. To be pro-active about protecting ones self and loved ones from the criminal element is a CHOICE, just as is the CHOICE they so enthusiastically support when an “uninvited intruder” appears in the womb. They argue for NO RESTRICTIONS when dealing with that scenario, and that is what makes them such HYPOCRITES. Some say: Dont believe in abortion?…dont have one. Well, dont believe in guns?…dont own one. Both are matters that potentially involve life and death and are CHOICES that responsible citizens in a free society should be able to avail themselves of. The difference between the two however is that for the great majority of firearm owners, the likelihood that their guns will ever be used to take a human life is extremely slim, wheras EVERY successful abortion kills a human being.

Leave a Reply