http://www.wcax.com/story/20637428/gun-control-bill-shot-down-in-montpelier
Gun control bill shot down in Montpelier
Posted: Jan 21, 2013 5:40 AM EST Updated: Jan 21, 2013 7:24 PM EST
By WCAX News
MONTPELIER, Vt. -
A push to ban assault weapons in Vermont has been shelved. Sen. Phil Baruth, D-Chittenden County, introduced the bill earlier this month. It would have banned assault-style weapons and capped the number of rounds in a magazine to five.
Baruth says he was inspired to write the bill after the Connecticut school shootings. But now he says there is not enough support in the Statehouse or among Vermonters to pass it.
Baruth sent a statement to his colleagues Sunday saying he would abandon the legislation. Monday, he refused to do an interview, but released this statement:
"After much thought, I've decided to withdraw S32, a proposed ban on assault weapons. It was a difficult decision, and one I fear will disappoint those who have written expressing their support. I began thinking about the bill after the Gabby Giffords shootings in Arizona, thought more seriously about it following Aurora, and had it finally drafted in the wake of Sandy Hook. It seemed to me that with the Federal government paralyzed, it had been left to the states to address both the mental health and gun-related components of these tragedies.
But it is painfully clear to me now that little support exists in the Vermont Statehouse for this sort of bill. It's equally clear that focusing the debate on the banning of a certain class of weapons may already be overshadowing measures with greater consensus, like tightening background checks, stopping the exchange of guns for drugs, and closing gun show loopholes. Finally, as incoming Majority Leader, I owe it to my caucus to remove an issue that seems increasingly likely to complicate our shared agenda this biennium.
To the many responsible gun-owners with whom I've communicated over the last several weeks: I've heard you. Please hear me when I say that government is not your enemy - we are all alike threatened by the kind of violence we saw in Newtown, violence that is clearly spreading. And all of us are responsible for stopping it. It's my hope that with this ban set aside, you'll join more willingly in that effort."
Saturday, gun rights activists rallied at the Vt. Statehouse in opposition to Baruth's proposal. The bill would have reinstated in Vermont a now-expired federal assault weapons ban.
Outstanding news!
ReplyDeleteThe media and ignorant liberals including Sen. Phil Baruth (D), have equated so-called assault weapons with shark attacks. Both exceeding rare and of no threat to the general population. But make for gory headlines and drive news ratings.
Should the douchebag, Sen. Phil Baruth, (D) have sincere interest in the welfare of his constituents, there are far greater threats to their well being. Maybe he can now focus on Big Gulps, trans fats, and F-35s, like other idealistic libs.
Should anyone be paying attention, Gov. Scumlin has yet to voice an opinion on the issue. Specifically, renewing the ban. In true style, he is polling opinion vs. facts in order to play politics. This man if a phony and will say whatever he feels will benefit his political career.
Sincere thanks to the moderator of this blog for posting this story.
Every one of the douche bags plays politics, from the town reps to the President. It's all about job security, none of them care about us. People need to wake up and vote these people out of office.
DeleteAs far as the actual article I'm very happy that this ban will not pass. Gun control cost lives. We have one of the lowest crime rates in the country yet have one of the most lack gun laws. In Chicago as of January 21st there were 31 homicides using guns, guess what, there is already a gun ban there!
Anyone can carry a gun in Vermont and criminals know that. When I'm with my family I conceal carry most of the time. Not to look like Billy B A but to protect my family. I hope and pray I will never have to use my gun to protect them. With the ban that was looming my pistol would be banned because it is semi automatic and can have more then 5 rounds. The right to protect my family was being threatened by this ban and it bothers me. I will not give kudos to the state for not allowing this ban. I will however, give kudos to the people of this state who went to the Capitol last weekend, who wrote letters and who voiced their concerns and who never gave up.
While Vermont is a "safe" state for gun use, it supplies 40% of the weapons Boston cops get off the streets. I don't feel comfortable knowing that yahoos can come here and make money buying guns for crooks elsewhere.
DeleteIf I were to give my car keys to a twelve-year-old or leave a butcher knife out where a two-year-old could get it, the resulting harm would brand me as an idiot for a good long time, if not the rest of my life. And neither cars nor butchers knives are designed to kill. Everybody-- and especially gun owners-- should show a level of respect for guns that acknowledges their power.
Which is to say, that I as a gun owner have a responsibility to see that the gun I purchase never falls into unworthy hands. I cannot give it away, sell it, pawn it, lose it, or leave it under my pillow or poorly secured-- because then I lose control over who might use it unworthily in the future-- and that would put me at the level of the man who lets a two-year-old play with a butcher knife.
The mark of a responsible gun owner is that he/she values the weapon far more highly than does the rest of the population. As a special tool, a gun deserves special handling, and society has the right to expect gun owners to operate at a higher level. Eighty percent of gun homicides are committed with "second-hand" weapons.
So, to reduce gun homicides by 80%, purchasers of guns should be held accountable for the use of their purchase for its entire existence, which means if they want to get rid of it, they have to destroy it. Are there any other Springfield gun owners who agree with the reasoning behind this?
???????
DeleteI agree with Chuck ???
is it true?
I think that was very well put, Chuck.
DeleteI would also note the headline shot down is incorrect. The bill was withdrawn, not shot down.
Deletebut that doesn't sell, shot down is much better.
Deleteinstead of "shot down" it could have been
Delete"chamber cleared"
This is odd @8:47: a Boston PD supervisor, Paul Shirley, in Bennington a couple of weeks ago stated the 40% figure, which an acquaintance of mine, Bob Williamson, had him repeat.
DeleteATF data is the source for the second-hand firearms homicides-- about 6,400 last year-- and that's only homicides, not suicides or accidents.
And, for what it's worth, Gun Appreciation day saw 36 firearms fatalities and 63 firearms injuries, the most spectacular of which was the 15-year-old who went into the family closet, got out one of the many weapons and killed his mother, father and three of his siblings (the others weren't home, apparently). A friend he phoned talked him out of going to Wal-Mart and killing some more.
It's too late to get a petition to have this warned for Town Meeting, but if people are interested, we can ask the Selectboard to put it on. Anybody?
Chuckles....as usual frootcake ideas...let lunacy rule? Restricting future gun sales from owners? Try that idea with your automobile that kills more people or doctors with prescription drugs. Buy a car but since cars have been involved with killing people you must destroy your car rather than selling it when you no longer want it? What a frootcake!
DeleteIt seems unlikely that the bill would have passed muster under Vermont's Right to Bear Arms clause which is much broader than the Federal Government's. Shumlin is taking the right approach and hoping for Federal regulation.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Right to Get Rid of Arms clause in the state constitution!
DeleteTrue, the Vermont Constitution reads as follows:
DeleteThat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Which is much broader than the Federal Constitution.
So, we ahve grounds for a law that makes them responsible forever for the weapon they purchase-- No matter what happens to it or what they do with it, whoever gets it subsequently will put them at risk if it is used wrongfully. If they sell it, give it away, lose it, have it stolen-- it's their neck on the block.
DeleteSuch a law would make people think seriously about how many guns they can keep under their control and reduce the volume of purchases. It would make private gun sales a thing of the past-- nobody would let go of their gun if they're still responsible for its use. It would make every gun owner a gun enforcement agent-- as far as his own weapon(s) was concerned. It would encourage the manufacture of more firearms, since owners would destroy them rather than pass them along (so manufacturers would support this bill rather than the NRA).
And the NRA could be sure that its members would not give up their guns until someone unglued them from their cold, dead fingers.....
What's not to like about such a law?
What's not to like about such a law you ask?
DeleteHow about the fact that it's RIDICULOUS!!!
Since hammers are responsible for far more murders per year than firearms.....how about we we institute your 'perpetual ownership' law on hammers????
They aren't.
Deletesorry chuck they are. just ask the fbi. they have the facts. one question how do the cops know where the guns came from. return address,made in vt sticker,some one says it.
DeleteNo, YOU cite the source of the data for your claim.
DeleteI can tell you, however, that manufacturers supply ATF with the serial number and shipping record for every weapon. When one is recovered, it is standard procedure to see who the manufacturer sold it to-- which provides the Boston PD with the name of the gun dealer in Vermont who sold the brand-new weapon.
A weapon might have been bought from a Vermont dealer, left in a drawer for years and then sold at a gun show-- but the Boston PD might not find this out. What it does know is that some Vermont purchaser didn't respect the power of a weapon and let it get into unworthy hands.
CG and the sewer rats offer more in the way of idiosy. They want to infringe on the rights of the 99% of law abiding citizens that store and use their guns responsibly by imposing on them all manner of statutory responsibilities. CG is the equivalent of Homer Simpson. While Homer's refrain has always been "Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?" CG on the other hand, like the good little liberal progressive fanatic he is, waxes idiotic with "Federal laws. Is there anything they can't do?" What a Homer.
ReplyDelete"That governs best which governs self."
DeleteMake a gun owner aware that he has received a sacrament, and he will conduct himself accordingly.
People who have access to a tool meant to kill deserve to treat it as something above the ordinary.
Your hypocrisy is showing...again!
DeleteWhat's this? Looks like CG and his merry band of idiots may have uncovered a clever Obama Administration gun walking scheme from Vermont to Boston?
ReplyDeleteTalk to the Boston PD about it
Deleteslow and oblivious ?
Delete630 “pedalcyclists” were killed in the USA during 2009, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a whopping 51,000 were injured, and the number of bicyclists visiting hospital emergency rooms is estimated to be in excess of 500,000 per year. I'm sure CG would agree that we simply must pass far stiffer legislation that will curb such outrageous tragedy, because many of these cases are surely a result of "second hand" bikes!
ReplyDeleteSo, to reduce bike fatalities and injuries by 80%, purchasers of bikes should be held accountable for the use of their purchase for its entire existence, which means if they want to get rid of it, they have to destroy it. Are there any other Springfield bike owners who agree with the reasoning behind this?
Bicycles are not designed to kill. What are guns designed to do?
Delete@ chuck.
Deleteguns are supposed to correct vote counts
and to retire politician's who have strayed
Like JFK and Reagan? Be sure to forward your argument to the NRA.
DeleteHook, line, and sinker. Sucker!
Delete@ chuck
Deletemy argument would be that the only thing that could have stopped a bad guy with a gun would have been a good guy with a gun.
and the same thing for the present and the future
you want to study the past ....
I say arm your president and your president shall arm you. anything else is insane or TREASON.
Pistol precious, my argument does not curtail your ability to own or use a weapon. Stop as many bad guys as you want to.
DeleteMy argument says that you would not want to be seen a fool by letting some idiot ever get his hands on a gun that you treated like a second-hand appliance. It is not enough to sell, lend, give or pawn a gun and hope it never passes into a bad guy's hands; an owner who respects the power of a firearm would show that respect by ensuring it never does.
chucky ...
Deletethere were no-good men around the presidents when shot ..
seems to have gone over oyur head. I often think of myself as a MAN like J.F.K. and I am expecting to get shot too.
you seriously gotta question a person's real agenda if they say taking your gun away from you is in your best interests or public safety's best interest. Where does that leave me, on the wrong end of the gun ?
Bikes may not be designed to kill, yet some do. Guns may be designed to kill, yet most don't.
ReplyDeleteI think you should check the facts. 900 people were killed by guns in the month after Newtown. We only hear about the slaughtering of big groups. We don't hear about the child killed every 45 minutes in the USA by guns.
DeleteGuns main purpose in being built and sold is to either kill or mame either people or animals. It wasn't built for any other reason. I would say it is fullfilling its purpose.
The purpose of firearms in civilian hands is to provide civilians with the means to defend themselves from criminal attack and from tyranny. Civilian possession of arms is protected by the federal and state constitutions. Regulation of civilian use is a power largely in the hands of the states. All law abiding citizens condemn the criminal use of firearms, and only a few (aboriginal Americans)question the regulation of the sporting use of firearms by the state. While no person should be required to possess or carry a firearm, any man morally and/or mentally unfit to bear arms should not be seen as fit to vote.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of the NRA for fifty years, and as a person who has suffered the firearms related death of my eldest son, I would like to suggest the following:
1. Tone down the rhetoric and quit insulting each other when you post comments. Everyone has concerns and most have valid points, and no one has a monopoly on good ideas. Good people can disagree.
2. Despite whatever people think, eliminating firearms from The United States and/or Vermont is an impossible task. It won't happen, because gun owners won't allow it to happen. Be pragmatic and face it: they are the people with guns.
3. How does anyone think a society unable to effectively restrict access to narcotics will restrict access to firearms and 30 round magazines? They can now be manufacturered with 3-D printers, so technology holds the trump card in this debate.
4. Many of the firearms fatalities that appear in the statistics are victims of police shootings, suicides, and criminals shot by persons they attempted to rob, assault, and/or rape. What man would refuse to allow his mother, sister, wife or daughter access to a pistol if she were in danger of being attacked?
5. In Chicago, 23% of the population is black, 60% of the shooting victims are black, and 80% of the shooters are black. 2% of Vermonters are black, yet 10% of our incarcerated population is black. Are guns the problem, or should blacks be seen as the probem? Or do the statistics demonstrate that blacks are at greater risk, are more subject to violent attacks, and therefore need unrestricted access to firearms more than non-blacks?
(6.) If you were a woman living or riding a bicycle in South Africa (600,000 rapes a year)or India (where the police largely refuse to act on a rape complaint), would you find a pistol useful in your defense? Does anyone remember the Norwich teacher who went to Scotland to hike on her vacation, and was beaten to a pulp? She died. Would she be alive if she had been armed with a pistol, as she admired the views?
7. The one thing I hope all commenters agree on is that anyone who possesses a firearm has the duty to use it safely, to store it securely, and to not allow those untrained in its use to handle it. The possession of a firearm conveys an enormous responsibility on the person who owns or handles it. While the government is seen as the enemy, which is an American tradition, the greatest danger to a gun owner is the careless storage, misuse and mishandling of his own firearm. Even police are often shot with their own weapons. Guns are not your friends and they are not toys. They are designed for one ultimate purpose: to perforate what is being shot at. Make certain that is not an innocent person. Think safety first.
It takes a bold man to put his name to his argument. Very good points, Chris!
DeleteI'll look up the percentages. I believe homicides are only about half of the gun deaths, suicides about one-third, and the rest accidents. I just recently heard for every intruder killed in a home, 43 homedwellers are killed. Which lends credence to the argument that the only thing that will stop a good guy without a gun is a good guy with a gun....
Here are the stats I've found. Some extrapolation will be needed:
DeleteOf the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 63.6% were suicide deaths, and 36.4% were homicide deaths.
IN 2011, there were 851 gun-related accidental deaths.
In 2006 (last year for which I could find BJS stats) there were 439 gun homicides committed by law enforcement in the line of duty.
And by the way, the 1:43 ratio for intruder/homedweller deaths stated earlier is not intruders killing 43 family members, but the household-owned gun killing 43 friends and relatives before finally popping a burglar.
Given how few accidental gun deaths there are, it seems the best way to win a family argument is to be the first person to get the gun....