The gun debate is, in theory, non-partisan but in reality, you generally figure you can trust Democrats to push for gun control and Republicans to oppose it.

And, for the most part, half of that seems to hold true. There aren't a lot of pro-gun Democrats running around holding elected office these days, after all, so you know where support for gun control is going to come from.

The problem is that we're starting to see some cracks in GOP support for gun rights.

In Vermont, there's now another.

Republican Gov. Phil Scott on Tuesday evening allowed two bills to go into law without his signature: one that bans unserialized firearms and another that aims to make it easier for employees to organize unions.

S.209 prohibits Vermonters from possessing unserialized firearms, which are nicknamed “ghost guns.” Such guns are often assembled from kits available for purchase online, and or can be built using a 3D printer. The result, according to gun control advocates, is a firearm which subverts the state’s background check process. And with no serial number, law enforcement groups have said, ghost guns are difficult to trace when they’re used in crimes.

The legislation does not prohibit home-built guns, but it does require that a Vermonter with an unserialized gun take it to a licensed firearms dealer, who can then conduct a proper background check and inscribe a serial number onto the weapon. It also establishes higher penalties for anyone who commits a crime while in possession of an unserialized firearm.

Lawmakers in the final weeks of the legislative session also added a provision into S.209 prohibiting the possession of guns in polling places. The measure is intended to protect voters as they cast their ballots, legislators said at the time.

Despite questioning the bill’s “practicality and impact,” Scott wrote in a letter to legislators on Tuesday that he was allowing the bill to take effect because, “As a public safety measure, I agree firearms should be serialized.”

To allow a bill to go into law without a signature is a middle-ground approach available to the governor — in between striking it down with a veto and endorsing it with a signature. Scott holds the record for issuing the most gubernatorial vetoes in state history: 46.

And by "middle ground," they meant gutless.

Scott could have vetoed the bill, which might have overridden but at least it would be a stand consistent with the GOP's supposed support for the right to keep and bear arms. He could have signed it, which would at least be consistent with his belief that all firearms should be serialized.

He did neither, which means he approved of it but didn't want to admit it in case it came up in future campaigns. It's a cowardly way of trying to create some degree of plausible deniability, as a general thing, though Scott doesn't even get that due to his comments supporting the measure.

It's absolutely disgusting.

First, let's address his claim that guns need serial numbers due to public safety concerns. The question here is, why?

The primary reason most give is that a serial number allows gun tracing to take place. Yet we need to remember that tracing is generally only helpful in tracking down who originally purchased the firearm. The problem is that even in a state with universal background checks, such as Vermont, there are too many ways that a gun can change hands and any attempt to trace it be lost forever.

One prime example is in the case of stolen guns. Tracing a gun at a crime scene might well show you who purchased the gun illegally, but if that gun was stolen from them, then what? It might work out well for the original owner since he might get his gun back--depending on the crime, most likely--but does that help anyone solve crimes?

Not really.

So I don't buy this notion that public safety benefits from a requirement that all guns be serialized. 

Especially since it should be remembered that serial numbers on guns is a relatively modern notion. There are a lot of guns out there that were made by reputable companies that don't have serial numbers simply because they predate the requirement.

While the bill does seem to include an exception for those guns, we should remember that those guns apparently don't represent a threat to public safety despite the lack of a serial number.

Yet that still pales in comparison to Scott's actions on the bill itself. He believes guns should have serial numbers and that we shouldn't be in possession of guns without them, yet he doesn't have the courage to actually sign the bill that he apparently supports. He also doesn't seem to have any convictions in support of people's right to keep and bear arms, evidenced by his refusal to veto the bill.

Republicans might well be better on guns than Democrats, but Scott is one that simply can't be trusted to defend the people's right to keep and bear arms.