Gun Laws & Legislation

REPORT: Republican Gov. Phil Scott Allows Form Of Gun Ban To Become Law Despite ‘Concerns’ Over ‘Practical Impacts’

Wikimedia Commons/PublicAugustas Didžgalvis, CC BY-SA 3.0

Jeff Charles Contributor
Font Size:

Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott reportedly allowed a bill to pass Tuesday that is set to ban so-called “ghost guns.”

The bill, which would prohibit people from owning firearms without serial numbers, was passed without his signature, according to multiple reports. These firearms are often assembled from kits that can be legally purchased online or built using a 3D printer.

The existence of these firearms has sparked debate, with opponents arguing that they are more difficult to trace and can be used to bypass state and federal background checks. (RELATED: Supreme Court Takes Up Case Challenging Biden Admin’s ‘Ghost Guns’ Rule)

The legislation reportedly requires the individual to take the gun to a licensed firearm dealer who would perform a background check and inscribe a serial number onto the weapon. Those who commit a crime while possessing a weapon without a serial number could also face harsher punishments, according to the reports.

The governor, in a letter to lawmakers, reportedly questioned the legislation’s “practicality and impact.” Scott explained that he would allow the measure to pass because “[a]s a public safety measure, I agree firearms should be serialized, according to ABC News and VTDigger.

Gun control groups celebrated the passage of the bill. Moms Demand Action referred to it as a “lifesaving measure.”

The Giffords Law Center also lauded the measure, claiming that “Vermonters will be safer with these laws in place.”

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, an organization that previously sued the state over previous gun control measures, told VTDigger in an email that it would wait for currently pending lawsuits challenging other state gun control laws before looking at filing a legal challenge to the ghost gun band.

“It is shameful that Vermonters have to sue to obtain rights which should have never been infringed upon in the first place,” wrote Chris Bradley, the organization’s president. “It is sad that Vermonters are paying the (attorney general) to defend these unconstitutional infringements, and then have to repay our legal fees when, not if, we win.”