The state already had a so-called “red flag” law in place, but this measure expanded it further. It also mandated new storage requirements for weapons and imposed a 72-hour waiting period on all gun transfers in Vermont.
Early in May, the legislature put its stamp of approval on the measure when the House followed an affirmative result in the Senate with a 106-34 vote.
The new law creates the novel crime of negligent firearms storage and greatly expands the red flag provision that was already Vermont law. Now a state’s attorney, the attorney general’s office, or a family or household member may approach the court to request a person be barred from buying, receiving, or possessing a firearm.
Supporters pin their argument on the state’s high suicide rate while opponents point to features that clearly contradict the Second Amendment.
So, how does this sweeping measure stand up to scrutiny?
Even Scott said through his spokesperson less than a month ago that he “has significant concerns about the constitutionality of the waiting period provision.”
That should have been a poison pill and stopped the legislation dead in its tracks. However, Scott held his ground and, by doing nothing, effectively allowed HB230 to become the law of the state. If the Vermont governor does not veto a bill, their signature is not necessary for a statute that cleared the legislature to become law.
In a Thursday afternoon statement, Scott spoke of “the relatively new legal landscape we find ourselves in.” He even admitted that he faced an internal “struggle” over the bill due to the oath public officials take to uphold the Constitution.
Yet knowing that this new law likely runs afoul of the document that underpins the nation, Scott allowed it to take effect. He tried to explain his reasoning.
“However, this matter is currently being taken up through the constitutional legal tests across the country and will be decided in Federal Court. I would also not be surprised to see a Vermont entity challenge the constitutionality of this provision of the bill, as well.”
In other words, it is being challenged across the nation and almost certainly will face a stiff test in his home state. Second Amendment advocates will not idly stand by and allow their rights to be ripped away through government overreach.
Scott concluded by declaring his intent on allowing HB230 to become law and letting the courts decide its constitutionality.
Supporters of gun rights in Vermont quickly pounced on this decision. Chris Bradley of Vermont’s Federation of Sports Clubs said in a Thursday statement that the group is “deeply disappointed” in Scott’s action. He particularly noted the statute “has at least one completely unconstitutional provision.”
While he agreed with Scott that the courts will ultimately judge the issue, he further noted that in his state, “things like an Oath of Office appear to be nothing more than a trivial inconvenience.”
Gun control zealots are increasingly implementing the relatively new tactic of throwing everything possible against the wall to see what sticks. After 2022’s landmark Bruen decision by the Supreme Court that restored gun rights to their just position, states are severely limited in ways they may constitutionally act.
As for Scott, he took the easy way out. Now it’s in the hands of the courts to determine whether the law will stand. Here’s one prediction that the state could have saved itself some time and dollars and looked for other ways to achieve its goals.
