Pro-gun state targets stronger laws

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Even as Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy takes a leadership role in the national debate about firearms, another Vermonter, State Representative Linda Waite-Simpson has stepped up to provide sensible solutions at the state level to the problem of gun violence that support the second amendment rights of her constituents and fellow Vermonters.

Waite-Simpson introduced her proposed bill, H.124 at a Friday February 1st news conference at the Statehouse in Montpelier. Flanked by supporters from the medical community, law enforcement community and several of her fellow lawmakers, Waite-Simpson made the case for reforming firearms regulations currently on the books in the green mountain state.

“This is really about enforcing what we have right now,” said the Vermont democrat. She emphasized training and education as one of the best tools for combating accidents and violence involving firearms. “If we can’t do that, it doesn’t make sense to start adding laws.”

As introduced, the bill would make the following changes to Vermont law:

• The measure would ban the sale or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

• The measure would require instant background checks for all firearms purchased at gun shows in Vermont.

• Mandate the Vermont Department of Mental Health to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That's something the state currently does not do.

• Provide local and state law enforcement with the authority to enforce federal restrictions on who can and can not legally possess firearms. Currently Vermont has no statutes on the books matching the restrictions outlined in federal law that prohibits firearm possession by convicted felons, perpetrators of domestic violence, persons covered by relief from abuse orders. mental health patients who have been found incompetent, dishonorably discharged members of the military and illegal users of prescription medications and other drugs, such as Marijuana who are currently prohibited by federal law from owning or possessing firearms. State police and local police departments in Vermont cannot enforce these restrictions under current Vermont law without the active involvement of Federal Law Enforcement.

• Require a firearms training/safety course for individuals choosing to carry a concealed weapon.

• End the prohibition on firearm suppressors. Vermont is currently 1 of only 7 states across the country that ban the possession of these devices. Waite-Simpson calls the suppressor an important safety feature that protects the hearing and eyes of persons using a firearm and those nearby.

Waite-Simpson has taken a lot of heat from groups like National Rifle Association for her efforts to pass what even some of Vermont’s ardent 2nd amendment advocates describe as reasonable well thought out legislation that, while still "needing some work", is heading in the right direction.

Despite growing support for Waite-Simpson’s proposed legislation from Vermont’s firearms community, she still faces what she calls “an uphill battle” to bring change to the state where the loosest firearms regulations in the country converge with one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the US and the lowest rate of gun and violent crime in the nation.

Her opponents are quick to point out with statewide gun ownership estimated to be between 45% and 50%, the highest in New England and one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country, Waite-Simpson’s proposed legislation is anything but a sure bet.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-919851?hpt=hp_bn1

Edited February 7, 2013 by Evylin

[SAT 9,609]

some legislators are talking about requiring liability insurance on guns....sorry I'm too lazy to find links.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wonder if background checks should include penile measurements, for demographic purposes only.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You guys were quick to post that Burlington had passed an assault weapons ban (not) but I am the one that had to post that it was null and void and only a publicity stunt due to State pre-emption.

You were quick to post that Phil Baruth had presented an assault weapons ban in the legislature, but I am the one that had to post it had been withdrawn

So, when this one is withdrawn or dies when the legislature recesses without taking action (it will not be voted on)will YOU update us on that Evylin or will I have to come and post the facts?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You guys were quick to post that Burlington had passed an assault weapons ban (not) but I am the one that had to post that it was null and void and only a publicity stunt due to State pre-emption.

You were quick to post that Phil Baruth had presented an assault weapons ban in the legislature, but I am the one that had to post it had been withdrawn

So, when this one is withdrawn or dies when the legislature recesses without taking action (it will not be voted on)will YOU update us on that Evylin or will I have to come and post the facts?

I'll give you that pleasure, Gary. You monitor the situation for us and let us know immediately.

You're on welfare now, no? You have plenty of time to spare.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Evylin

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, when this one is withdrawn or dies when the legislature recesses without taking action (it will not be voted on)will YOU update us on that Evylin or will I have to come and post the facts?

Well, in all fairness, Evylin has been helping you out with a healthy dose of facts in the other thread.