www.eagletimes.com
2017-02-09 / Front Page VT legislators consider firearm background check bill By TORY JONES toryb@eagletimes.com A selection of firearms lines store shelves and wall displays at Windsor Arms on US Route 5. — TORY JONES A selection of firearms lines store shelves and wall displays at Windsor Arms on US Route 5. — TORY JONES New rules would require background checks on private and individual gun sales, loans and trades, if a Vermont bill is approved. Under the proposed bill, H. 151, introduced in the State House on Jan. 31, a background check would be required on the “transferee,” whenever firearms are transferred between individuals, unless that transfer is between immediate family members or to a law enforcement agency or an active member of the armed forces. If H.151, “An act relating to requiring background checks for the transfer of firearms” passes House and Senate, it would take effect on July 1, 2017. As of Wednesday, Feb. 8, the bill has not moved past judiciary committee. Right now, in what is known as a gun-friendly state, federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers — but not private sellers — to perform a background check on the purchaser before selling that person a firearm. Southern Vermont is home to several federally licensed firearms dealers. Springfield resident and firearms business owner Paul Stagner said on Wednesday that while firearms background check laws are important, adding more layers to existing regulations may not be effective. Stagner owns Green Mountain Trading Post, specializing in private and special-order firearms. “The law on the surface makes sense, but I have no confidence that it’ll be upheld, because current laws aren’t being upheld or supported by government agencies,” Stagner said. His business formerly had a large storefront, but now operates mainly online, with about 250 orders a year, he said. In Vermont, Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealers can access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), maintained by the FBI, to obtain instant information on a prospective firearm purchaser's status regarding any conviction disqualifications, according to the Vermont Department of Public Safety. Disqualification could be due to a felony conviction, a domestic assault conviction, or a domestic assault charge that was amended to an offense where there is an element of violence on the Criminal History record. In Windsor, FFL firearms dealer and gunsmith Steven Newlan, owner of Windsor Arms, said on Wednesday that he had not yet heard about the new bill. The Route 5 business includes an on-site repair shop and a storefront that carries firearms parts and components. Newland said that he preferred not to go on record with an opinion on the new background check proposal, but that he has not heard any concerns recently about changes to the law. Similar legislation came around a couple of years ago, he said. The proposed background check bill was introduced in the House by Vermont Reps. Michael Mrowicki of Putney and Johannah Donovan of Burlington, both Democrats serving the Windham-4 district, and was referred that day to the House Committee on Judiciary. Bill sponsors for H.151 also included Reps. Mollie Burke of Brattleboro, Sarah Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford, David Deen of Westminster, Diana Gonzalez of Winooski, Helen Head of South Burlington, Terence Macaig of Williston, James Masland of Thetford, James McCullough of Williston, Jean O'Sullivan of Burlington, Thomas Stevens of Waterbury, George Till of Jericho and Michael Yantachka of Charlotte. In January, GunSense Vermont, a group lobbying for tougher regulations and universal background checks for all firearms, spoke at the State House. “’Fingers crossed, no questions asked’ is not a smart policy when it comes to gun buyer criminal record checks in Vermont,” said Ann Braden, President of Gun Sense Vermont, according to a press release from the organization. Braden also said at the State House that recent, independent polling shows 84 percent of Vermonters support universal background checks for all gun purchases, and that “the gun violence prevention movement” will continue fighting for change. The wording in the proposal includes any persons transferring a firearm, with some exceptions. The “proposed transferee” in the bill refers to an unlicensed person to whom a proposed transferor intends to transfer a firearm, by sale, trade, lease, loan or gift. “Transfer” under the proposed bill would include the temporary provision of a firearm if the person giving or loaning has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use it to commit a crime, and if the provision occurs at a shooting range, shooting gallery, or other area designed for target shooting; for use during target practice or a firearms safety or training course; while hunting, fishing, target shooting, or trapping; while the transferee is in the “continuous presence” of the transferor; for repair, service, or modification by a professional repair service; or under circumstances where it is reasonable to believe that the transfer is “necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily to any person,” all according to the draft bill. Except for in those circumstances, an unlicensed person could not transfer a firearm to another unlicensed person unless both appear together, with the firearm, before a licensed dealer and ask that the dealer facilitate the transaction, and that dealer determines the receiver is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. Offenders of the new law, if passed, could face imprisonment and fines of $500 to $1,000. The full draft bill proposal is available at http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/BILLS/H-0151/H....
Another piece of "feel good" legislation that will do NOTHING to stop crime. Most murders are committed with either legally purchased or stolen guns. Wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, or most other mass shootings. Once a person has decided to commit murder, do you really think a $500 fine will be a deterrent? All someone would have to do if the person they "loaned" a gun killed someone with it, is say they stole it.
ReplyDeleteNo, actually most homicides (as opposed to suicides, accidental discharges resulting in death and law-enforcement homicides committed in the line of duty) are committed with guns that were released to the perpetrator by a purchaser who LET THE WEAPON LEAVE HIS CONTROL through loss, neglectful storage, loan, pawn or sale of a weapon.
ReplyDeleteHad those gun purchasers exercised the proper respect for the power of their weapon and their responsibility to the public to ensure their weapon never passed into unworthy hands, we would not have 80% of homicides committed with the guns they bought.
THAT is the legislation we need.
You CAN NOT hold someone responsible for someone elses actions! "Let the weapon leave his control?" That makes it the responsibility of the one IN CONTROL! Sounds like you're just looking for "targets of opportunity!" Let's apply the same logic to another situation; if you sell someone a car, and later they get stoned and kill someone, is it the seller's responsibility? If someone intentionally kills another with a chainsaw, is Ace Hardware responsible? All of these things; guns, cars, and chainsaws, are inanimate mechanical devices THAT CAN KILL in the "wrong hands." I suppose you COULD require the seller to read minds and see the future, THAT would prevent gun deaths; holding innocent citizens responsible for future crimes commited by others won't!
DeleteThe gun purchaser can control his/her weapon by destroying it rather than letting it get lost, stolen, lent, gifted, pawned or sold. It's that simple. And it's not a violation of the Second Amendment. So, what's your problem with that proposal, which would reduce gun homicides by 81%?
DeleteOr, to put it another way, how would you feel if your spouse, parent or child was killed with a gun you had sold ten years ago to a friend, who then sold it to someone else?
Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip! I would feel no worse about someone getting killed with a gun I sold, than with a car I sold. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS. I also challenge your assertion that 81% of homicides would be prevented. It's a nice sounding number, but since you include EVERY way to purchase a used firearm in your "data," what you're really saying is that if all used guns were destroyed, no one could get a used gun. Unless they stole it, or illegally purchased a stolen one, which is how most criminals actually get them. So, I guess if you wanted to commit murder, you'd have to steal a gun, or buy a stolen one, or pass the background check and buy one legally! Wouldn't stop crime, just punish honest citizens for crimes they didn't commit. The real winner here? THE GUN INDUSTRY! With all the used guns out of circulation, people would have to buy NEW ONES! (Hmmm, didn't think that one through, did you?)
DeleteJust an observation: online discussions about gun control, both here and elsewhere, seem to involve a high number of definitive statements, often involving capitalized words. It's as though people are really sure about what they're saying and they want to emphasize that. That applies to people on all sides of this complex topic.
ReplyDeletePhilip, caps in the blogosphere are the equivalent of a shout. When passions run high, he who uses caps first is losing...
DeleteDON'T FEED THE TROLL.
DeleteThe topic isn't complex, though it may seem that way. It's have the right to defend yourself, or don't have it.
ReplyDeleteGood to know you wouldn't feel sorry if somebody you love gets killed with a gun you could have destroyed, 6:34. I'm not saying 81% of homicides would be prevented; I'm saying the 81% of homicides committed with the firearms that were not destroyed would be prevented.
ReplyDeleteWith original purchasers valuing the power of their firearm enough to keep it from falling into lesser hands, all gun homicides would be committed by the person who is the original purchaser-- which would mean fewer gun homicides overall.
How is it punishing a gun owner to require him to respect the potency of his weapon enough to keep it from passer into hands that are not as worthy as his? King Arthur never lent or sold Excalibur.
Chuck, you really are a piece of work. Instead of having a thoughful and productive conversation on an important topic, you engage in cheap insults, verbal manipulation, and "alternative facts." You are the Trump of the far left. Well, I'm done "feeding the troll," and I really do have better things to do!
DeleteExcalibur? Is that not legend?
ReplyDeleteKing Arthur did get rid of Excalibur, As I recall it ended up in a stone for anyone to find , A total stranger pulls it out of stone ,Then some woman in a lake gets it, Everyone come's to their sense's and Excalibur is returned to the stranger
ReplyDelete