Gunrights

Gun bill passes House; guv veto unclear

by Guy Page

S30, prohibiting possession of firearms within hospital buildings, passed the Vermont House today, Friday, January 28.

Less than 100 representatives voted in favor of the bill, giving supporters some hope it could be stopped by a gubernatorial veto. Vetos can be overridden by a two-thirds majority of 100 members.

It’s unclear whether Gov. Phil Scott will attempt to veto S30. When asked, Gov. Scott’s press secretary Jason Maulucci Thursday afternoon told Vermont Daily Chronicle: “the Governor has said he’s not opposed to considering proposals that would close the ‘Charleston loophole,’ however, since signing gun safety reforms in 2018, he believes new restrictions aren’t needed and that we should instead focus on improving underlying causes of violence. The bill still has a long way to go through the legislative process, and we’ll continue to monitor its movements.”

As approved by the House, S30 makes carrying firearms on hospital property a criminal offense, extends to up to 30 days the waiting period for firearm sales, and allows a health care provider to report to police a patient deemed threatening due to firearms. The bill now will go back to the Senate for reconciliation of changes made the House.

The bill received preliminary “second reading” House approval Thursday, January 27. The roll call vote was 97-49. One Republicans Peter Fagan of Rutland and Scott Beck of St. Johnsbury voted in favor. Democrat Henry Pearl (Danville) voted no.

Today’s final vote, also known as “third reading,” was 93-47 in favor. It was a ‘division’ vote, in which the votes are tallied without being matched with the legislators’ names.

Categories: Gunrights

Tagged as: ,

11 replies »

  1. what a waste of taxpayers money and time! This is only a feel good bill which does ZERO to protect law abiding citizens. Where are these SJW moonbats yesterday when a criminal with a gun in Burlington was arrested and set free the same day? They want law abiding citizen control not criminals control evidently! The real problem lies with sarah george and bj donavan, molly gray, phil beruth and many others in Montpelier doing ZERO to protect the law abiding citizen’s of Vermont.

  2. The law abiding, gun carrying citizen already respects those signs on health centers, hospitals, and court house doors that warn, “NO GUNS ON THIS PREMISE”. This is more legislation, without teeth, written by legislators who apparently have nothing else to do except waste paper and ink while trying to appeal to the “new Vermonter” for their future political advances. It will be all down hill from here if this gets a foot hold.

  3. Like all things liberal and socialist, Due process is cast aside for the benefit of the collective.
    The “Charleston loophole” is government not doing NICS checks in a timely manner. Rather than hold government accountable and fix the government system, the citizen must be impacted. I’m not sure anyone with criminal intent will wait 30 days for a firearm to commit their crime.
    As to including Health Care professionals as arbiters of whom may possess a firearm, that’s a can of worms that the courts will decipher, at taxpayer expense. It is clearly stated in Chapter 1, Articles 11 & 16 of the Vermont Constitution.
    There seems to be an extra zeal to create crazy laws and regulations in Montpelier this year, It remains incumbent upon Governor Scott to uphold his constitutional duties, as the legislature has deemed themselves above their constitutional duties.

  4. Bammo, add to the proposed 30 day state waiting period that, as I understand it, the federal NICS application for the purchase runs out at the 30 day mark, so you would have to go through the NICS again. Round and round we go, and where it stops ?

  5. For anyone who was still wondering, S30 crystallizes what the Progressive/Democrat supermajority in Montpelier really thinks about Vermonters who lawfully possess firearms.

    If the bill’s sponsors were being honest (Ha! I know, hilarious, but bear with me), they’d have produced a long list of assaults on Vermont healthcare providers by patients or family who didn’t like getting bad news. That’s the explicit scenario envisioned by Rep. Notte. But they didn’t, because there’s no evidence of an epidemic of that behavior. As usual, the bill ignores the prospect of a planned attack by a determined assailant – because laws don’t prevent things like that and Pollyanna Progressives won’t admit it – and lays bare their assumption that anyone who lawfully owns a firearm will go off the deep end at any moment and start shooting. Overwhelming evidence proving them absolutely wrong will not deter them, because it’s not about our safety: it’s about their disdain.

    We also have the issue of sweeping red-flag authority granted to healthcare providers who can already break confidentiality in the case of planned self-harm or criminal activity. I guess that wasn’t enough? Therapy is hard enough for someone talking about things they’ve resisted talking about before, and now it’s further complicated by the nagging question of whether an antigunner therapist can be trusted.

  6. Passing this will provide exactly the same level of protection from violent people that the existing signs at the entries to the hospital currently provide…zero. Anyone intent on mayhem will ignore signs and laws.

Leave a Reply