Gov. Phil Scott reiterated his support for stricter gun control laws at the Annual Governor’s Luncheon in Springfield on Monday.
www.vnews.com
Scott Backs Gun Reform Efforts By Patrick O’Grady Valley News Correspondent Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Print Gov. Phil Scott Montpelier Vt. Springfield Rotary Springfield Vt Springfield, Vt. — Gov. Phil Scott reiterated his support for stricter gun control laws at the Annual Governor’s Luncheon in Springfield, Vt., on Monday. Speaking at the Hartness House, Scott quickly launched into a discussion about efforts to reform the state’s gun laws, telling the audience his support came from the realization that last month’s deadly shooting in Parkland, Fla., could in fact happen in rural Vermont. Days after the Feb. 14 shooting, police uncovered an alleged plot by a teen in Fair Haven, Vt., to commit a mass shooting. Scott said that awakened him to the reality that Vermont is not immune to such tragedies. “(Fair Haven) was eerily similar to what was unfolding before our eyes in Florida,” Scott said. “The reality of how close we came to real tragedy like Florida forced me to do some real soul-searching. Because I have said our gun laws were adequate. I believed that we were such a small, tight-knit state we were insulated from this type of event. But I was wrong.” As a result of Parkland, Scott said, he worked with his team to seek better ways to protect youth and communities. Scott’s changed outlook enhances the chance that gun legislation being drafted by lawmakers has a better chance of passage, depending on its final language. Scott said he needs to see the final version that hits his desk before he commits to signing the bill. “The details matter,” Scott said after the luncheon. After the Parkland shooting — which left 17 students and educators dead — Scott’s administration ordered an immediate security assessment of all schools in the state. He also requested an appropriation of $5 million to help schools upgrade security infrastructure. “I will also be issuing an executive order the next few days establishing a violence protection task force to examine all aspects of school safety and community protection as well. “As part of my action plan I asked for reforms that do not, and I repeat, do not infringe upon Second Amendment rights, because again, I believe in the Second Amendment,” Scott said. Scott’s gun proposals include a ban on bump stocks, measures to allow the temporary removal of firearms in the face of serious and credible threats of domestic violence, evaluation and improvement in the current background check system to make sure reporting requirements are adequate and being fully enforced. Scott said he would also give consideration to increasing the age limit to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, with certain exceptions, including members of the military and law enforcement. “To be clear, my recommendations do not take away any guns or gun rights from law abiding citizens. But I think most of us agree: No child should be afraid to go to school, and no parent should be afraid to put their kids on the bus,” Scott said. “But unfortunately in this ever-changing world that we have, we find ourselves with both of those scenarios. The time has come for us to be proactive.” Scott said the Vermont House will likely take another vote on a gun control bill that largely matches his proposals, possibly today, and then it will go back to the Senate. Other issues the governor discussed included the economy, education spending, the workforce and taxes. Scott said the tax cut passed by Congress and signed by President Trump late last year may have cut taxes at the federal level but because of the “complexities” of Vermont income tax system, the measure will add $30 million in additional income taxes at the state level, hitting families the hardest. “My administration introduced a state tax reform package to protect Vermont working families from that $30 million tax increase because of changes at the federal level,” Scott said. “My plan protects Vermonters from the increase and also simplifies the system.” The state House Ways and Means Committee took up the proposal, but Scott said he was disappointed that lawmakers tied it to an income tax surcharge for education spending. “I believe that muddies the waters and negates the many positive aspects my proposal would have made,” Scott said. The governor said lawmakers, like everyone else, want to see lower property taxes for education spending, but raising income taxes defeats the goal. “So far the Legislature’s discussion is focused on changes on how we pay for education. They propose lower property taxes but what we wanted was lower education taxes,” Scott said. “So what they have done is raise the income tax to balance that out but done nothing to contain costs. There has got be a way of finding efficiencies in the system.” We must work together to reform a system to contain costs or we will continue face education tax increase year after year. And I don’t believe Vermonters can afford that, and I can’t accept it.” Scott said he also rejects a proposal to raise the minimum wage over the next several years until it reaches $15 an hour. He said the Legislature’s own economists said the proposal would have a negative impact on jobs and have an even worse impact on towns, like Springfield, that border New Hampshire. Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com
http://www.vnews.com/Scott-talks-about-gun-legislation-the-economy-and-education-in-remarks-at-Rotary-luncheon-16454489 Top2018News
Governor Scott does not represent the people that elected him. He ran as a person not supporting firearms control. Because of that stand he received the votes of those that otherwise most likely would not have supported him. It is sad that we have those running for office that will say what ever is required to get elected. Where are all the honest politicians?
ReplyDeleteSpringfield's representatives voted for the gun control legislation. I will remember this at the next election. The legislation was rammed though the house without testimony from those that support Article 16 of the Vermont constitution.
I have been asking those in Montpelier the following question. Why are 18 year olds not mature enough to purchase a rifle? They can vote, drive, have cell phones, and join the military where they can be killed or kill others. I still have not received an answer to this question from those in Montpelier.
EEEK! The sky is falling! The Clintons are coming to get us! It's the Deep State! Scott has Communist flag in the back of his garage! AAAH! AAAH! AAAH! (And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.)
ReplyDeleteThe best minimum age for the purchase of a weapon is 27, when the brain has reached maximum development. For a lot of people (guys especially), the one-third of one's life between 18 and 27 is where the same famous last words are uttered, "Hey, watch this!" I suspect people of those years are the majority of the prison population. Eighteen-year-olds are given guns in the military because they are more easily trained to overcome their innate reluctance to kill. That's not a good recommendation for allowing them to buy weapons.
ReplyDeleteChuck, in the past I've agreed with you on some things and disagreed on others. Sometimes you're way out in left field, and this is one of those times. Just for openers, the brain starts to deteriorate at age 40. If "max development" is the criterion, then you deny weapons for anyone middle aged or older. And "innate reluctance to kill" - LOL.
DeleteWhat makes an 18 year old developed enough to make decisions on voting if they cannot be trusted to own or purchase a firearm? Are you saying that decisions made during the voting process are not important? Why is someone 18 years old allowed to drive. Statistics show it is much more dangerous to operate an automobile.
ReplyDeleteGood point regarding teenage drivers. I am assuming you are making the same correlation with teenagers and guns?
DeleteQuoted from the NRA:
DeleteA new commentary video from the National Rifle Association admitted that the odds of needing to use a gun for self-defense are exceedingly small while still promoting the ownership of firearms for self-defense.
This admission from an NRA media product is surprising, but also accurate. The odds of randomly laying out two decks of cards in the same order are infinitesimal.
The odds of using a gun defensively are actually so low that it is difficult to accurately measure the number of defensive gun uses that occur each year.
Quoted from the Californian:
CDC statistics show there are far bigger risks in life for people who live outside the big city ghettos. Last year nearly 39,000 people died from accidental poisoning, 31,000 died from accidental falls and 34,000 were killed in vehicle accidents – over 13,000 involved drunk or distracted drivers. Nearly 4,000 people died from accidental drowning.
So, other than being a white suburbanite, how do you improve your odds of survival? Stay off ladders, don’t overdose on prescription medicines, don’t drink alcohol or text while driving, don’t get suicidally depressed, do stay out of the water and do avoid neighborhoods prone to gun violence.
Basically if you don't frequent areas like the bad parts of Chicago and the like, statistically, you don't need a hand gun.
I grew up in the Chicago area and I did, in fact, frequent the "bad parts," as that's where some of the better Blues clubs are. I never took a gun with me; at the time it would have cost me ten years in prison, if caught. There are "bad parts" all over America, and you don't always know you're in one, until it's too late. The two times I had to defend myself with a firearm were in "good parts;" once at my Florida condo, AND ONCE AT MY HOME HERE IN SPRINGFIELD! This town may LOOK worse than the South Side of Chicago, (and parts of it do) but it is indeed safer. Or is it? Funny, in all the years I spent "slumming" in Chi-town, I never needed a gun, but here I did! I guess you never can tell!
DeleteThanks 4:13, what law did/do they have in Chi-town that gives you 10 years for carrying a hand? gun. Be interested to know.
DeleteIn Illinois, back in the 90's, it was a felony to be in public with a gun magazine, with only one round in it, EVEN WITHOUT THE GUN. ANY firearm had to be empty, in a locked case, and in a locked compartment out of reach of the driver and passengers, just to be transported. There was no "carry" of any kind until recently. Again, it was a felony if you got caught. ANY crime, committed with ANY KIND of weapon is an automatic felony. Illinois had, and still has, the toughest gun laws in America. You have to apply for, and recieve, a Firearm Owners Identification permit (FOID) issued by the State Police, to even LOOK at a gun! Chicago had their own laws, which were even more restrictive. All of these laws didn't stop "gun violence." All they did is make honest, law abiding gun owners afraid of going to prison, for something as stupid as failure to empty a magazine at the range. From what I hear, gun related crimes have been on the decline, overall, for many years there. True, some years are worse than others, but much of what you hear is political hype, on BOTH SIDES!
DeleteAll it takes to see that some people NEVER develop beyond adolescence is reading comments on this blog!
ReplyDeleteI feel betrayed by Gov. Scott. I voted for him because of his stance on gun control.
ReplyDeleteHow is it that Vermont has one of the lowest murders per capita in this country and the government thinks our laws need to change? Follow the money people! Vote them ALL out.
I moved back home to Springfield after 8 years in the Navy because of Vermont's loose gun laws and the feeling of being "home" now I feel that as a resident I'm not being listened to.
I wonder how many people without good health care coverage, without parental leave and family sick leave, without defined benefit pension plans and without adequate income for home heating voted for a candidate because of his/her stance on firearm ownership rather than on the issues which were gravely affecting them and their families?
ReplyDeleteProbably way too many. Then again, I wonder how many people voted for "gay marriage/abortion/gun control" candidates without considering anything else? PROBABLY WAY TOO MANY!
DeleteHow many voted for Obama, simply because he was "black"
Delete