The Word in the House 5/23/2019 - It Ain't Over Til It's Over!

"It ain't over til it's over!" - Yogi Berra

The plan was to finish the legislative session by Saturday, May 18^th, even working close to midnight again as we did the last couple of years. Alas, it was not to be. By Friday afternoon there were still about a dozen Committees of Conference working to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of bills, including the budget, transportation and tax bills. Speaker Mitzi Johnson recessed the House until the following Wednesday to allow the conference committees to finish their work in the interim.

Dozens of bills completed their ping-pong journeys through both the House and the Senate this week. Several bills engendered considerable debate on the House floor before the final vote including bills increasing the minimum wage (S.23), requiring a 24-hour waiting period for handgun purchases (S.169), and requiring businesses to cover medical monitoring for persons exposed to releases of toxic chemicals (S.37).

After a brief negotiation with the Senate in a Committee of Conference, the broadband expansion bill (H.513) received final approval as well.

This week was also marked by an interruption of the debate on S.37 by climate crisis protestors.  The House was startled when several protestors in the balcony started speaking loudly about the failure of the legislature to do more about the climate crisis, unfurled a banner, and tossed hundreds of index card messages into the chamber.  Speaker Johnson gaveled the House to Order and asked the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol police to remove the protestors to restore order. When that didn’t stop the protestors, she ordered the legislators to leave the floor. All but two members complied.

While I don’t condone the actions of the protestors, I understand their frustration. For all the ominous science-based reports on what we are doing to the global climate, all the peaceful marches and lobbying by students and activists including the march from Middlebury to Montpelier, the legislature took only small steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The $1.5M EV incentive program has been cut to $1M. The two-cent increase of the heating fuel tax to raise $4.6M for weatherization of Vermont’s old housing stock has been replaced by the Senate with a transfer of one-time money from Efficiency Vermont surplus funds. In the Senate version, the number of low-income families benefitting will be the same as the House version for the next fiscal year, about 1300, but falls back to the current number, about 850, for future years. Efficiency Vermont will continue to help moderate-income families with weatherization assistance.  

However, if we are going to transition from fossil fuels to cleaner electricity in both the transportation and heating sectors of our economy in the next decade, we’ll need to make an investment to accelerate adoption of those technologies. This can be done in a way that grows jobs, reduces use of fossil fuels and saves Vermonters money. What we’ve done this year does not accomplish this in a sustainable way. Our Climate Solutions Caucus made up of concerned Representatives and Senators will be meeting between now and January to define a strategy to move forward in 2020.  Last year the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that we have 12 years to reverse the buildup of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to prevent a rise of 2 degrees-C (4 degrees-F) in global temperatures. We must act as soon as possible with our regional partners to do our part for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and future generations.

I welcome your emails (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com) or phone calls (802-233-5238).

The Word in the House 4/25/2019 - Legislative Timeline Is Getting Short

The time has come where we’re nearing the end of the legislative session and work needs to be completed on bills if they have any chance of being enacted in this session. For the House, this includes many Senate bills now under consideration.  These include bills for taxing and regulating recreational cannabis sales (S.54), increasing the minimum wage (S.23), requiring a 24-hour waiting period for handgun sales (S.169), and raising the age for buying tobacco products to 21 (S.86).  House bills waiting for similar action in the Senate include broadband development, taxing e-cigarettes, increasing weatherization assistance, increasing child care assistance, and paid family leave, not to mention the major money bills for capital spending, fees, transportation and the budget. Bills that were not passed before crossover (March 15^th) can have a second chance if their provisions are added to a bill that was passed by the other body and deals with the same topic.

The cannabis tax-and-regulate bill is now assigned to the House Government Operations Committee. Recently, Governor Scott stated that he would not sign the bill if it didn’t allow for roadside saliva sampling for THC levels.  The Senate did not include such testing because of the concerns that the results do not conclusively indicate impairment and because saliva testing impacts privacy. The House Judiciary Committee has been asked to review the appropriateness of including saliva testing before Gov Ops bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

The imposition of a 24-hour waiting period for handgun sales is also in House Judiciary.  About half of suicides are by gun and result in fatality 90% of the time compared to other methods.  Failed suicides by other means allow a victim to get counseling and treatment. A 24-hour delay can short-circuit an impulsive act that is irreversible. This bill passed the Senate as a compromise from the first draft requiring a 72-hour waiting period. Concerns about how a longer waiting period would impact gun shows led to the compromise since gun shows are usually held on weekends. One possible amendment being considered is to include long guns (rifles) in the waiting period.

Raising the age to purchase tobacco products to 21 has been passed by the House in previous years only to die in the Senate.  This year the Senate passed a Tobacco-21 bill and sent it to the House. A lot of progress has been made over the years in reducing smoking, especially among our youth. However, with the advent of vaping, addiction to nicotine is on the rise not only in high school but even in middle school. Raising the age for tobacco products would also apply to e-cigarettes and accessories. There is a long list of supporters of this bill, including the leadership of the Vermont National Guard, and the bill is likely to pass on a floor vote.

The House Energy and Technology Committee has possession of Senate bill S.95 which will allow municipal electric utilities like Washington Electric Co-op or the Stowe Town Electric Department to borrow amounts up to 50% of their assets without requiring a vote of their members. This provides our committee an opportunity to add language that will increase the allowable net metering capacity for school districts that have merged from 500 kW to 1,000 kW. This will provide merged school districts the ability to offset a greater amount of their electrical needs with renewable energy while saving taxpayers money.

And a quick note on the weatherization bill that would raise heating fuel prices by 2 cents per gallon. The Senate considers the fuel tax increase too onerous and is considering raising money for low-income weatherization another way.  Meanwhile, fuel oil prices went up 5 cents per gallon in the past month, two and a half times the fuel tax increase, and Vermonters are not getting any additional benefit from it. Did anyone notice? Just sayin’.

I welcome your emails (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com) or phone calls (802-233-5238).  

Legislative Report 4/18/2018 - A Profile in Courage

n 1957, three years before he was elected President, Senator John F. Kennedy wrote his best-selling book Profiles in Courage. In it he described events in the lives of eight U.S. Senators who bravely cast votes in defiance of their party and public opinion, thereby jeopardizing their chances for re-election. These were acts of personal integrity that they believed were the responsible thing to do in those circumstances. I was privileged to witness a similar act of courage on the front steps of the Vermont Statehouse this past Wednesday. At 2:00 in the afternoon, Governor Scott, accompanied by his wife, stood at a podium with news cameras, legislators and members of the public both in support and against the action he was about to take: signing three bills that would impose regulations on gun sales, prohibit certain gun accessories, and provide law enforcement with the authority to confiscate guns when responding to domestic violence incidents and under court order from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.

The scene in front of the statehouse was alive with tension as opponents dressed in hunter orange and carrying signs that read “One term Governor”, “Traitor” and “See you in court” vied with signs saying “Thank you Governor Scott” and “March for our Lives.” As the Governor stood at the podium, he was greeted with chants of “Traitor! Traitor!” which were countered by chants of “Thank you! Thank you!” He began his speech over the shouting, speaking carefully, deliberately and directly to those in front of him. He endured constant interruption by opponents yelling their disagreement almost continuously during his speech while supporters clapped enthusiastically when he made points supporting his decision to sign the bills. At one point Governor Scott said, “I understand I may lose support over my decision to sign these bills today, but those are consequences I'm prepared to live with.” As I stood behind the Governor with dozens of my colleagues and members of the Governor's staff, I felt I was witnessing history in the making and an event that was clearly a profile in courage.

My positions on many issues differ from those of Governor Scott. We have different perspectives on issues like raising the minimum wage, finding a way to pay for cleaning up the waters of our state, and looking for a way to price in the true costs of fossil fuels while incentivizing conversion to renewable energy sources. On other issues, like the opioid crisis or helping businesses use energy more efficiently, the Governor and the legislature have been able to work collaboratively toward a common goal. It is my hope that differences can be overcome to achieve results that benefit Vermont and Vermonters. Governor Scott is correct in saying that “public safety is the top priority of any government.” He should not become a one-term Governor simply because he did the right thing to improve the safety of Vermont citizens.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Statement on Gun Regulation Bill Signing Ceremony of 4/12/18

I was privileged to witness the bill signing ceremony on the front steps of the Vermont Statehouse this past Wednesday for three pieces of legislation: S.55, a universal background check bill;

H.422, a domestic violence bill; and S.221, a “red flag” bill. These bills impose regulations on gun sales, prohibit certain gun accessories, and provide law enforcement with the authority to confiscate guns when responding to domestic violence incidents and under court order from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.

Governor Phil Scott, accompanied by his wife, stood at a podium before news cameras, legislators, and members of the public, both for and against the action he was about to take. He began his speech over the shouting of opponents, speaking carefully, deliberately and directly to those in front of him. Despite constant interruption by opponents, he spoke of the events and reasons for his decision to change his position regarding gun regulation in Vermont. At one point Governor Scott said, “I understand I may lose support over my decision to sign these bills today, but those are consequences I'm prepared to live with.”

I commend Governor Scott for his courage in taking this position. He is correct in saying that “public safety is the top priority of any government.” It is my hope that the Governor and the legislature will continue to work collaboratively together on the many challenges facing Vermont to achieve results that benefit Vermont and Vermonters.

The Word in the House 3/25/2018 - Pursuing Common Sense Gun Regulations

Very few issues have generated as much emotion on both sides as the issue of gun regulation. After 10 hours of debate last Friday, the House amended Senate bill S.55 dealing with firearms regulations. S.55 passed the Senate with

• a provision related to the disposition of firearms that have been seized by law enforcement, and
• an expanded background check requirement for unlicensed (private) firearm sales, with exceptions for law enforcement, military and immediate family members.

The House Judiciary Committee after weeks of testimony voted 6 to 5 to include

• a 21-year old age requirement for purchase of long guns (the purchase of handguns to those under 21 is already barred by federal law), with an exception for law enforcement, military and 18 to 20 yearolds who have taken a hunter safety course,
• a ban on bump stocks, and
• a ban on high-capacity magazines (more than 10 shot capacity).

The provisions of S.55 help protect the safety of the general public. Expanding background checks makes sense because it is too easy for criminals to get their hands on guns if they can bypass the background check system in place for federally licensed firearms dealers. Responsible gun owners who want to sell one of their guns now have the backup to ask the purchaser to go through a background check. Transfers of firearms between immediate family members are not affected.

The rationale for prohibiting sales to under-21-year-olds is based on data showing that almost all completed teen suicides involve the use of guns. Teens are more likely to be impulsive when dealing with adversity. There have been many instances of Vermont teens taking their own lives that way including a Charlotte teen, a classmate of one of my daughters, who committed suicide by handgun. If we at least require the consent of a parent or the taking of a safety course, we can reduce the impulsivity factor in cases like these.

The bill does not ban any types of firearms, but does address accessories that can make semi-automatic firearms, like the AR-15 used so notoriously in the mass shootings we have become too familiar with since the Columbine High School massacre, more lethal. One of the most notorious was the Las Vegas massacre where a bump stock device was used to effectively turn a semi-automatic rifle into a virtual automatic rifle. In combination with high capacity magazines, hundreds of rounds were able to be fired into the crowd of concert-goers, killing 52 and wounding hundreds of others. If such weapons are to be available, then we have to move the odds of survival in favor of potential victims. The ban of bump stocks and limiting magazines to 10 shots does this. The bill prohibits the sale, purchase, import and transfer of these items going forward. The primary goal of this bill is to save lives. Will it prevent all future shootings? No, but it will put a few more barriers in place and provide a few more opportunities to short-circuit attempts.

None of these provisions violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These provisions have been in place in other states for years and have withstood challenges all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I recognize the right of citizens to own firearms for legitimate purposes like hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. However, some opponents of S.55 that I spoke to feel they need the ability to resist a future dictatorship by our national government. When the Second Amendment was passed, our country did not have a standing army and the defense of our country relied on every able-bodied man being “all-in”, ready to be called up to form “well regulated” citizen militias. Today we have our armed forces and a national guard of citizen soldiers, all sworn to uphold the Constitution. We have the ballot box which is and has been the most effective bulwark of our democracy. I am much more inclined to put my trust in our democratic institutions than in the idea that we need to rely on guns to protect ourselves from a rogue government. While some may differ with this philosophy, it is the one that I choose to embrace.

The Word in the House 2/22/2018 - Gun Violence Op-ed

It was only after the senseless massacre of 17 students and teachers in Lakeland, Florida, last week that I learned that 17 other school shootings had occurred in just the first seven weeks of 2018. How could I have not known that there were so many? Has it become so common that we don't even notice?

Once again we hear public officials offer condolences, thoughts and prayers, sincerely I'm sure, for the victims and their families and their friends. Yet these expressions of empathy are just platitudes without a commitment to act to prevent these tragedies. Over and over and over again, even after the worst mass killing last Fall in Las Vegas, no action at all on any federal or state level has been taken to do anything about this cancer affecting our country.

We're told that it's “too soon” to talk about solutions. We're told that we “shouldn't politicize tragedy.” So, what happens? Nothing!

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. But with rights come responsibilities. What kinds of arms are appropriate for private ownership? In this gun-worshipping culture we have, it seems that no one at the federal or state level is willing to take the responsibility to keep weapons designed for military use in war out of the public domain. The AR-15, the weapon of choice for mass murder in the U.S., is one such weapon.

Since the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, in 2012 more than 400 people have been shot in more than 200 school shootings. Since that time more than 150,000 people lost their lives in the U.S. due to gun violence. (Google “gun violence in the U.S.”) Since Sandy Hook, 14 bills were introduced in the Vermont legislature to set reasonable regulations for firearms. With the least restrictive gun laws in the country, only minor changes have been made in the last six years in Vermont. Last year the House passed a Domestic Violence bill that would allow police to temporarily confiscate guns from a household when responding to a domestic violence incident. This would offer some protection for domestic violence victims during a critical period in a bad situation. That bill sits in the Senate waiting for action. As usual, a very vocal minority of gun owners turned out in force at a Senate hearing to oppose it.

I am willing to acknowledge that we have a lower level of gun violence in Vermont than elsewhere. However, looking at the characteristics of mass shootings, it can happen here. It's only a matter of time. We are fortunate that a potential school shooting in Vermont was thwarted just days ago due to swift law enforcement action as a result of a report by a concerned citizen of the threat seen on social media.

It's time we took action in Vermont on the bills currently under consideration to protect domestic violence victims (H.422), to ban “bump stocks” (H.876), and to require background checks for the sale or transfer of firearms (H.151, S.6). This will only happen, however, if good people demand it by calling their legislators in the House and Senate with the same sense of purpose as those who oppose regulation. Failure to speak up equals complicity when a similar tragedy occurs in the future on Vermont soil.

The Word in the House 3/29/2017 - Safety and Accommodation

Every year hundreds of bills are introduced in the Vermont House of Representatives. Each is assigned to one of the 15 standing committees for consideration. Relatively few are actually voted out of committee and brought to the floor for consideration by the full House. Those that are must be voted out of committee by “crossover”, which fell on March 17^th this year, so that the Senate has time to consider them. The same crossover date holds for Senate bills as well.

Dozens of bills were voted on and passed by the House without major opposition during the week following crossover. However, two bills engendered considerable debate. One dealt with domestic violence and guns and the other addressed accommodations in the workplace for pregnant women.

Domestic violence continues to be a problem in Vermont. In 2015, six of Vermont’s 16 homicides were domestic violence related, and all six were committed with a firearm. Between 1994 and 2015, 131 domestic violence-related homicides were committed, and 77 of them (59%) were committed with firearms. While current law allows for the confiscation of firearms when the court orders the removal at the point of a final relief from abuse order or following a conviction for a violent crime, more protection of victims is needed when police first respond to an incident. Statistics show that the most dangerous time for a victim is when they reach out for help. After two days of debate, the House passed H.422, which provides that after an individual has been arrested or cited for domestic assault, law enforcement can remove any firearms in the perpetrator's possession or in plain view. It is important to note that these provisions would only apply when probable cause has been found to arrest or cite someone for domestic assault. If there is no further court order, the guns would be returned within 5 days. The concern was raised that this legislation is about gun control. It is not. It is a precautionary measure to protect the lives of victims of domestic assault.

The second bill, H.136, which requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation in the workplace that might be needed by a pregnant woman, was passed after several hours of debate. A Supreme Court decision from 2006 segregated pregnancy from portions of the existing discrimination law and determined that simply being pregnant, or having an issue with one’s pregnancy, isn’t enough to ask for different tasks that accommodate that pregnancy. H.136 will make it possible for a pregnant woman to ask for a temporary accommodation such as a restriction on heavy lifting, or exposure to certain chemicals, or standing for prolonged periods. The bill makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to provide an accommodation at the request of a pregnant employee unless it proves to be an undue hardship for the business.“Undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or

expense to the employer and can depend on the employer's size. This bill encourages communication between the employer and the employee and should help to provide a safe workplace environment for everyone.

A word on the budget is in order. At the time of this writing, the House Appropriations Committee has moved from a $70M shortfall in the Governor's proposed budget to around $4M. The committee members are still working to resolve that difference, hopefully with cooperation from Governor Scott's administration. The committee is trying to squeeze every dollar out of the budget while maintaining the necessary programs and service that keep Vermonters safe, healthy and productive, and the economy working for all.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 1/25/2017 - Vermonters Rally for Universal Background Checks

The Vermont statehouse in Montpelier is nicknamed "The People's House". For one thing, it is where legislators do "the people's business." Furthermore, unlike many other statehouses around the country, the public has complete access to both the building and their legislators when the legislature is in session, usually January through early May. In fact, the statehouse functions as a living museum, with free access and free tours all year long. Those Vermonters who let their representative know they will be visiting during the session are often introduced to and welcomed by the assembly during the announcements.

This accessibility is a hallmark of democracy in Vermont and is most apparent when groups of citizens, advocating for one issue or another, converge on the building en masse. The place becomes a beehive of bodies and voices. Press conferences by legislators or organizations are often held in the Cedar Creek Room which features a huge mural of the Civil War battle of Cedar Creek in which the First Vermont Brigade played a key role in the Union victory.

It was such a press conference organized by Gun Sense Vermont on January 10th that saw more than a hundred Vermont citizens from across the state pack the room in support of background checks for all firearms sales. Senator Phil Baruth introduced a bill (S.6) that would extend the federal requirement of a background check for firearm purchases from a licensed firearms dealer in Vermont to include private and internet purchases as well. A companion bill, which I plan to co-sponsor, is being drafted for introduction in the House. These bills would close the so-called "gun show loophole" which today allows a prohibited person to obtain a gun without going through a background check. The definition of a prohibited person includes anyone convicted of a violent felony, anyone with a restraining order resulting from domestic abuse, and anyone judged in a court of law to be mentally ill and considered a danger to themselves or others.

Vermont is considered to be one of the safest states for gun violence per capita, so why do we need such a law? Governor Scott, as did his predecessor Governor Shumlin, has stated that he does not see a need for any more gun laws in Vermont. It is true that most gun owners in Vermont are responsible individuals and would pass a background check without any problems. However, we still read and hear about gun violence in Vermont, often perpetrated by individuals who fall into the prohibited category. According to the Gun Sense VT website, in the states that require criminal background checks on unlicensed handgun sales, there are 38% fewer women killed by guns than in the states that do not have this requirement. In Vermont in 2013, there were more than 1,000 final relief from abuse orders issued, and 1,457 violent crimes that involved violence against intimate partners or family members. And of the 13 homicides in Vermont in 2013, eight (62%) were deemed domestic violence-related, and of these, four were committed with a firearm.

Gun trafficking is another problem fueled by the ubiquitous opiate crisis that results in guns being traded for drugs. I-91 has become known as the "iron pipeline" because drug dealers and criminals find it easier to buy a gun in Vermont than in southern New England or New York, states which have stronger gun laws. Without a federal universal background check law, state laws are like Swiss cheese with Vermont being one of the holes. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a report last October that showed 74% of firearms used in New York crimes were bought in states with weak gun laws, and that 489 of those were traced back to Vermont. While this was only 1% of the total, it illustrates that Vermont is a source. Every gun sale prevented by a background check has the potential of saving a life. A VPR-Castleton Polling Institute poll found that 84% of Vermonters, including more than 70% of gun owners, approve of universal background checks. Common sense dictates that the hole should be plugged, and I hope that Governor Scott will eventually agree.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com)

Legislative Report 10/29/2016 - Looking Ahead

As we approach the election, I want to thank my Charlotte and Hinesburg constituents for your confidence in me and the work I have been doing for the last six years in the Legislature.  I want you to know that I do not take your support for granted and will continue to keep you apprised of what is transpiring in the Vermont House on a regular basis during the session through my weekly columns in our local newspapers. Two-way communication is essential, so I welcome your input as well.

The campaign rhetoric at the national level is very disconcerting to me and, I’m sure, to you as well. The strength of our great nation – and it continues to be Great – is our ability to engage in civil discourse despite our disagreements and work collectively for solutions to the problems affecting our society, economy and environment.  Here in Vermont we still seem to be able to accomplish that feat.  While everyone may not be perfectly satisfied with an outcome, all voices will be heard and acknowledged, and compromises will be reached.  A good example of that is the energy project siting bill that we passed last session, which includes taking wind turbine generated noise into consideration for future projects.  On the most controversial issues, such as marijuana legalization, gun regulation, and vaccine requirements, the legislature holds extensive public hearings and takes this input into consideration as legislation is developed.

There are always controversial issues that confront the Legislature, and the upcoming session will be no different.  Marijuana legalization will again be considered.  We now have more data coming from Colorado and other states that have already legalized marijuana.  According to a report cited by Health Commissioner Dr. Harry Chen, teen use of marijuana in Vermont is already twice as high as tobacco use.  Frequent marijuana use by teens and young adults harms brain development and has a strong correlation with poor academic performance. With public input and recommendations from the Health Department, we will hopefully be able to come up with reasonable regulations as well as increase efforts to discourage its use among teens. 

I also expect a strong push to pass legislation requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, which I support.  With or without the support of the new Governor, this legislation will be introduced for consideration in 2017. While Vermont may not see the same amount of gun violence as other states, our lax gun regulations make it easy for criminals to buy guns here and take them back to Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York.  According to New York’s Attorney General, 1% (489) of the 52,000 traceable guns involved in crimes in New York alone came from Vermont (ref. https://targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/tool/).  I-91 on the other side of Vermont is known by law enforcement as the “Iron Highway” because of the exchange of drugs for guns by out-of-state criminals along this corridor. Background checks will also provide additional protection for victims of domestic violence.

While refugee resettlement is not an area over which the State of Vermont has jurisdiction, it did become an item of discussion late in the 2016 session. The Vermont Refugee Resettlement Center in Colchester coordinates the resettlement program for all of Vermont. Rutland Mayor Chris Louras announced in April that Rutland was willing to accept 100 Syrian refugee families for resettlement in Vermont.  Because his announcement caught City Council members as well as the general public by surprise, a negative reaction resulted in dividing residents of Rutland.  The greater Burlington area, including Charlotte, has been host to refugees from many trouble spots across the world, including Bosnia, the Congo, Somalia and Bhutan. I recently had the occasion to speak with Mr. Puspa Luitel, a Charlotte resident and member of our Planning Commission, about his experience.  As a result of that conversation I have arranged with the Resettlement Center to sponsor a public forum on November 15^th at the Charlotte Senior Center from 7:00 to 8:30 PM. It will feature some of Vermont's newest residents, including Mr. Luitel, who will share their experiences both before and after their arrival.  I hope you will consider attending what should be a very informative event. 

As always I want to hear from you.  I can be reached on my cell phone at 233-5238 or via email at myantachka.dfa@gmail.com.

A Common Sense Approach to Gun Rights

On Friday, April 17th, the Vermont House of Representatives voted 80 to 62 to pass a bill that makes it illegal under Vermont law for a violent criminal to possess a firearm, and requires that a person judged in a court of law as dangerous to themselves or others be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database.  I was proud to advocate for the bill's passage and to count myself in the majority.  I made the following statement on the floor of the House after my vote:

"Mr. Speaker,
Fear!
We've heard comments today that reflect a fear that any bill we pass dealing with guns in any capacity will lead to no one being able to own a gun.

This is an irrational fear. It implies that if we move away from one extreme - an absence of regulation - that it will inevitably project us to the other extreme - a total outright ban of all gun ownership.
We are smarter than that. The character of democracy is to hear opinions from all sides and find a middle ground.

We cannot allow convicted violent felons, people who have already shown a propensity for ignoring the basic rights of you, me, our neighbors, to possess deadly weapons.

As far as reporting persons who have been judged in a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others as a result of mental illness, the Executive Vice President of the NRA suggested in 2012 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that the dangerously mentally ill should be reported to 'an active national database of the mentally ill.'  This is what we are doing.

Let us not fear the measures we take to protect ourselves by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and of those who have been demonstrated to be violently dangerous, so that we can make our communities safer."

Legislative Report 2/25/2015 - Background Checks

Whenever legislation regulating firearms is proposed, no matter how sensible, it never fails to elicit a strong negative reaction from gun rights groups. A couple of weeks ago, the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S.31, the bill relating to possession and transfer of firearms. The hearing was packed by both supporters and opponents, each distinguished by the colors they wore: green for supporters and hunter orange for opponents. It was clear that opponents outnumbered supporters by a large margin. Witnesses were called pretty much in alternating order of pro and con, and more than 30 people testified.

The objections to the legislation fell into 3 categories: 1) a misunderstanding of what is in the bill, 2) the contention that it violates the 2nd Amendment, and 3) that the background check provision would be unenforceable. So, here is what the bill does and does not do.

There are three provisions. The first makes it a crime in Vermont for a person convicted of a violent crime to possess a firearm. This is currently federal law. However, without this provision, the crime would have to be prosecuted in federal court by a federal prosecutor. This provision would allow prosecution by a States Attorney in the Vermont court system.

The second provision requires reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) persons who are judged in a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others, or who were found not responsible for a crime by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial due to a mental illness and are a danger to themselves or others.

The third provision requires a background check to be conducted on a buyer of a firearm before it could be sold to that person. There is an exemption if the firearm is transferred or sold to a family member or a law enforcement agency, or to an police officer or a member of the Armed Forces acting within the course of their official duties. It does not prohibit loaning a firearm to a friend for an afternoon of shooting or hunting as some opponents claimed. This is the most controversial provision, although most opponents see every part of the bill as an infringement on their constitutional rights. On the contrary, courts have upheld the constitutionality of background checks passed by 16 other states. Moreover, background checks are required when a gun is purchased through any federally licensed firearms dealer like a sporting goods store or gun shop. This bill merely extends the requirement to online and person-to-person sales and also closes the so-called "gun show loophole", where a private seller would not require a background check while a licensed dealer in the next booth would.

We all know of the increased prevalence of heroin trafficking. Studies have shown that guns obtained in Vermont are part of the currency of the drug trade coming from New York, Boston, Albany and other places with strong gun laws. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in 2013 alone 165 guns recovered in crimes in other states were traced back to Vermont. This may not seem like a lot, but it is significant considering the size of our population.

I do not object to guns or to the traditions of hunting and sport shooting. However, as a gun owner myself I support this legislation because it is necessary to help prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals and dangerously mentally ill persons. I have talked to many other gun owners who support this legislation as well because it makes common sense. As the NRA is fond of saying, "Guns don't kill people; people do." So, we have to take whatever steps we can to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Persons who can pass a background check when purchasing a gun from a dealer have nothing to fear from this legislation. As for enforceability, while there will always be an opportunity for a prohibited person to skirt the law by buying from an unscrupulous individual, responsible, law abiding gun owners will be helping to protect their fellow citizens when selling their unwanted guns with a background check as required by law.

I am a cosponsor of H.250, a companion bill to S.31 in the House.

I continue to welcome your thoughts and questions and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Vermont Laws Regulating Firearms: Next Steps

This past summer, while driving to my granddaughter’s softball tournament in Connecticut, I had the occasion to drive through Newtown past the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The access to the school was still barricaded, a testament to the terrible crime that took place only nine months before when 20 children and six faculty members were gunned down. It was a stark reminder of what can happen when highly lethal weapons are misused by unstable people and criminals. Last month Gun Sense Vermont invited me to participate in a forum on gun violence in Vermont. Gun Sense Vermont is a statewide organization that promotes gun safety laws that respect the Second Amendment and protect children and communities by keeping guns out of the wrong hands. 

I spoke about existing Vermont laws pertaining to firearms and efforts to enact other sensible regulations designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people who pose a danger to themselves or others. The forum was well attended by both supporters of these efforts and people who advocate for the rights of gun owners. Vermonters have a long and strong tradition of hunting and sport shooting, which are honorable and beneficial sports in which firearms play an essential role. Many families own multiple rifles, shotguns and pistols and use them responsibly. 

However, there is also a dark side to the prevalence of firearms. From the thoughtless misuse that can result in a bystander getting killed by a stray bullet or the killing of other people’s cows and horses, to purposeful murders during domestic or neighbor disputes and the all-too-many suicides by young people who choose a permanent solution to a temporary problem, Vermont is not immune to gun violence. Compared to the rest of the country, gun violence incidents in Vermont may be few—but tell that to someone who lost a loved one due to gun violence under any of those circumstances.

We know that we can never prevent every tragedy from happening, but we have to ask if there is something we can do to reduce the likelihood that they’ll occur. According to the Vermont Agency of Human Services, Vermont’s suicide rate is above the national average, and suicide is the second leading cause of death among Vermonters between the ages of ten and 24—about nine per year on average. Also, since 25 percent of Vermont’s youth suffered serious depression in 2011, this population is at greater risk of attempted suicide.

But it’s not just about the suicide rate. It is easier for criminals to obtain guns in Vermont  than in neighboring states because transfers of firearms between individuals are not controlled, whether the transactions take place privately or at gun shows.  Straw purchases, in which an individual eligible to buy a firearm does so with the intent of providing it to an ineligible person, are also easier in Vermont than in New York or any other New England state except New Hampshire. 

Our goals should be to 
• keep guns out of the hands of known criminals,
• keep guns out of the hands of persons with a history of domestic abuse,
• keep guns out of the hands of persons who, as a result of mental illness, are judged to be a danger to themselves or others and 
• keep guns stored safely to prevent unsupervised access to them by our young people.
 

A need for better control

Early in the 2013 legislative session I joined with several of my colleagues in the Vermont House to co-sponsor bills that would seek to address these goals.

Why is legislation needed?  Let’s look at the laws that currently exist in Title 10 and Title 13 of Vermont Statutes. Title 10 prohibits a person from hunting with a machine gun of any kind or description or an auto-loading rifle with a magazine capacity of more than six cartridges. 
Title 13 prohibits possessing firearms on school property or in courthouses as well as selling or providing firearms to individuals under the age of 16 by anyone other than a parent or guardian. Nor can anyone under the age of 16 possess a handgun without the consent of a parent or guardian. Furthermore, Title 13 subjects the purchase of firearms by residents and non-residents to the provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. 

So, other than restrictions on persons younger than 16, Vermont law does not regulate at all who can obtain a firearm in Vermont. This creates a disconnect between Vermont law and federal law. 
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the sale of firearms to convicted felons, domestic abusers, those determined by a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others as a result of mental illness, and other types of dangerous people; the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 requires a federal background check on anyone purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. These federal acts are enforced primarily by the federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency, or ATF, and only peripherally by local or state police if they apprehend a prohibited person during the commission of a crime. Furthermore, there is a well-known loophole in the federal law that permits sales between private individuals at gun shows and between residents of the same state without a background check.
 

Next steps

The NRA is fond of saying, “Guns don’t kill people; people do.” Well, I agree! Then let’s plug those loopholes that allow prohibited persons to obtain guns. How do we do that?
First, a background check should be required for every transaction, retail or private, where gun ownership changes hands. Putting this into Vermont law will allow violations to be enforced and can be implemented using local and state police resources. While federal law prohibits private sales between residents of two different states without going through a licensed dealer, this has been extremely difficult to enforce. 

Furthermore, there is no limit to how many firearms can be purchased at one time. This makes it possible for persons from New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts, states with strict gun laws, to come to Vermont to stock up on guns that can then be transported to Boston or New York City or elsewhere and resold privately. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has stated that 85 percent of weapons recovered from crime scenes in the city are from out-of-state sources.

Second, Vermont law should require that persons who have been determined by an authoritative legal process to be dangerous or incompetent to manage their own affairs due to mental illness, or who have been committed to a mental institution, or who have been found incompetent to stand trial by reason of insanity should be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database.  The same should be required for persons under restraining orders or who have been convicted of domestic violence.

Third, Vermont police should be given explicit authority to enforce any federal firearms laws. This would allow violators to be prosecuted under Vermont law instead of having to refer them to the federal court system. A related issue is what to do with weapons confiscated during commission of a crime. Today, most Vermont police departments do not have adequate or proper storage facilities for confiscated weapons. The State of Vermont should provide for one or more facilities that can be used for this purpose.

Fourth, we have to make it more difficult for teenagers who may be coping with school, friendship, bullying or depression issues from getting their hands on guns and taking their own lives. It should not be considered a burdensome requirement for guns to be stored safely—with trigger locks installed—in homes with children or where children are likely to visit. Most Vermont gun owners are responsible, but we hear all too often of such tragedies.

So, I’m convinced that we need to tighten up regulations on the sale of guns in Vermont and that we can do so without violating the second amendment of the Constitution, without infringing on the time-honored traditions of hunting and sport shooting, and in a way that will reduce the incidence of gun violence in Vermont.  Any legislation that has been or will be proposed will be thoroughly discussed by the appropriate committees in the Legislature. All sides will have the opportunity to provide input before a decision is made. We should not, however, be afraid to discuss any issue that involves making our communities safer.

The Word in the House 2/7/2013 - Seeking Firearm Safety

You can’t turn on the TV news, open a newspaper, or visit a news website without hearing of incidents of gun violence on a near daily basis.  Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on reinstituting an assault weapons ban.  Wayne Lapierre, president of the National Rifle Association, calls for armed guards in all of our schools.  State Senator Philip Baruth introduces a bill to ban assault weapons in Vermont and quickly retracts it after a flurry of opposition by Vermont gun enthusiasts.  The political climate in Vermont touching all things guns is a “third rail” that all politicians fear not only because of the long traditions of hunting and sport shooting, but because of the visceral reaction any talk of regulation illicits among gun owners.

However, despite this fear of reprisal, some members of the Vermont House, including myself, have dared to introduce a bill, H.124, that seeks to improve the safety of the citizens of Vermont while respecting the right of responsible citizens to own a firearm.  The introduction of H.124 has not unexpectedly drawn a flurry of emails and phone calls to the sponsors from across the state opposing the bill.  In this article I will explain the provisions of the bill and the reasons for them.

First, let me point out that I support the 2^nd Amendment and gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.  The bill does not take away or infringe on that right. It is primarily focused on firearms safety, both to insure that firearms do not get into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and that those who do own them use them responsibly.  The bill:

1. Proposes to prohibit large capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds). This is the most controversial section but it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not these magazines pose a public safety hazard.  On behalf of the many Vermonters who are outraged at the unprecedented number of mass killings in 2012 (and we are off to a rousing start in 2013), we need to ask the question and do our due diligence in investigating this issue.
2. Requires background checks on firearms purchased at gun shows.  IF it is true that “guns don’t kill people, people do,” then we need to do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people like criminals.  Vermonters are generally responsible gun owners.  But a criminal from NY City or Boston or even Montreal can come to Vermont to buy guns when they would legally be prohibited from doing so otherwise.  Vermont is not an island.
3. Puts into state statute the federal prohibitions on firearms possession.  This includes: felons, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, domestic violence offenders, and persons legally judged to be a danger to themselves or others.  Our state and local law enforcement officers have no authority under state law to confiscate firearms prohibited by federal law. They can hold a person but need to call the federal authorities like the ATF or FBI in order to further detain and/or charge the offender.
4. Requires a course on safe procedures for carrying a concealed firearm.  Just as we require a test to obtain a driver’s license to demonstrate the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, we want to ensure that anyone carrying a gun in public areas knows how and when to use it without endangering others.
5. Requires the Vermont Department of Mental Health to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NCIC) System persons legally judged to be a danger to themselves or others.  This would prevent them from purchasing a firearm outside of Vermont.
6. Repeals the prohibition on sale or use of gun silencers (suppressors.) Vermont is 1 of 7 states that does not allow silencers. This proposal is consistent with firearms safety.  Silencers or suppressors not only protect hearing, they also help prevent injuries to other parts of the face and neck. This provision may also help abate noise from firing ranges. It does not prevent the state from issuing rules prohibiting the use of silencers while hunting.

Like any other bill, this one will be vetted in committee and will probably undergo some changes.  Some provisions may not survive in the final version. In my opinion, these are reasonable requirements that enhance public safety without infringing on the 2^nd Amendment.  All of these provisions have passed the test of constitutionality in other jurisdictions.  In spite of that, H.125 has aroused vocal opposition.  I hope this article will lead to civil and respectful discussion in our community and will prompt supporters of the bill as well as opponents to contact me or their own Representative with their opinion.  As a society we should not fear to discuss ways in which we can lessen the opportunities for gun violence that claims more than 11,000 victims each year in the United States.

Related: WCAX Investigates: Guns and Drugs