Vermont Governor Vetoes Waiting Requirement Bill

Vermont Governor Vetoes Waiting Requirement Bill

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

Vermont isn’t about to be confused with Texas or Arizona any time soon. It’s a confirmed blue state and has been for quite some time, but there’s a history of gun rights there as well. That history has taken a beating as of late, unfortunately, but there’s a glimmer of hope.


You see, the legislature passed a measure that would impose a 24-hour waiting limit on anyone seeking to buy a gun. Waiting limits are popular with the anti-gun Left because they labor under the delusion that it somehow stops murders and suicides.

However, Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott wasn’t convinced.

Gov. Phil Scott announced Monday evening that he has vetoed SB 169, gun control legislation that would have required Vermonters to wait 24-hours to buy a handgun.

“Last year, I called for and signed a package of historic gun safety reforms because I believe they make schools, communities, families and individuals safer, while upholding Vermonters’ constitutional rights,” Scott said in an emailed statement.

He listed the accomplishments of those reforms: universal background checks, extreme risk protection orders, the ability of police to seize firearms from domestic violence situations and an increase in the minimum age to purchase guns from 18 to 21.

“With these measures in place, we must now prioritize strategies that address the underlying causes of violence and suicide. I do not believe S.169 addresses these areas,” the governor wrote.


I think Vermont should have started with addressing the underlying causes of violence and suicide. There’s no reason to pass gun control regulations when we all know that criminals don’t obey the law. They will still seek out and obtain firearms no matter what hurdles lawmakers put in place.

By addressing those underlying causes, you negate the perception that gun control is needed. You eliminate the problem rather than, at best, forcing criminals to shift to a different weapon. You can potentially remove their desire to commit a crime in the first place.

That’s a win for everyone.

It’s only too bad that Scott only thought about that now after he’s infringed on the Second Amendment rights of countless Vermont residents. Had he started there, he could have had the same long-term impact without stepping on people’s rights.

Unfortunately, that’s not what happened, and it’s unlikely it will ever work out like that. Gun control perpetuates itself. Laws are passed, accomplish nothing, thus being used to justify still more laws.

Scott’s decision to stop the train is a good one. I do wish he’d stopped it sooner, but better late than never. His decision to focus on the roots of violence appears to be the right move, and if he’s successful, it might create an opportunity for undermining violent crime in other states, all without destroying people’s Second Amendment rights.


I doubt that’ll catch on in places like New Jersey or California, but it might, especially if it works.

If it does, it could change the entire landscape of gun rights in this nation. Imagine how hard it would be to justify gun control if crime continues to drop and mass shootings end despite no new laws being created?

In a word, it would be glorious.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member