Semi-Auto Ban in Vermont Withdrawn

It looks like the sweeping ban was introduced by the incoming Senate Majority Leader in Vermont, but he came to realize that it would absolutely divide the Democratic caucus for him to push gun control. He said this:

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. …

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.

Clearly, his statement still leaves quite a bit of room for him to push for added sales restrictions and extreme regulation for anything he defines as a gun show, but he’s learning that gun owners will speak up.

6 Responses to “Semi-Auto Ban in Vermont Withdrawn”

  1. Jacob says:

    I call BS on his statement that people have written to him supporting a semi-auto ban. Put up the letters and phone logs or it didn’t happen.

    • Harold says:

      This is Vermont, the home of Ben and Jerry’s. I’m sure he got some.

      This is Vermont, the only state in the union to never ever outlaw or restrict concealed carry. I’m sure he and the members of his caucus etc. got a lot more against his proposal.

  2. Ed says:

    Wait, it’s legal to exchange guns for narcotics in Vermont? That seems odd. Perhaps that’s a law law enforcement might want to, you know, enforce.

  3. Soap Box One says:

    Look for the violent crime rate in Vermont to now….uh…er…remain really, really low.

  4. Michael Pelletier says:

    Didn’t the Vermont Supreme Court rule all gun control in the state is unconstitutional and illegal back in like 1912 or something?

  5. Sigivald says:

    stopping the exchange of guns for drugs

    Yeah, get right on that one.

    Because the people who already can’t legally touch a gun (on both sides), and are trading it for a commodity that’s illegal to posses (on both sides)… somehow you’re going to “stop” them doing that.

    When you already can’t stop them from having the drugs or the illegally-owned guns…