|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
A newly released report from the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office recommends a statewide ban on firearms and other weapons in state and municipal buildings and on the surrounding properties.
The report, submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Judiciary and Government Operations, was required by Act 120 of 2024, which tasked the office with examining policy options for firearms in government buildings.
The same law, introduced as S.209 and which became law without Gov. Scott’s signature on May 28, bans carrying firearms at the polls.
The report suggests the ban should include state property near buildings, but exclude hunting lands. Similarly, the ban should include municipal property near buildings, while exempting hunting lands. The report also suggests that municipalities should have the option to opt out of the ban via a vote at their annual meeting.
Key Points of the Recommendation:
Statewide Ban: The report recommends a statewide prohibition on possessing or carrying firearms or other dangerous weapons on state and municipal property.
Opt-Out for Municipalities: Municipalities should have the ability to opt out of the ban through a vote at their annual meeting, which could apply to some or all of their buildings and land.
Property Definition: The ban should extend to state and municipal property near buildings, but not include hunting lands.
Vehicle Exception: Weapons securely stored in vehicles should be exempt from the ban.
Deadly Weapon Definition: The definition of “deadly or dangerous weapon” should be consistent with state law exempting weapons safely stored in vehicles, and weapons carried by law enforcement, for example.
Signage: Clear signs should be posted outside of state and municipal buildings to inform the public about the new law.
Implementation Timeline: The state needs at least six months to prepare for the ban, while municipalities would need at least twelve months to allow time to opt-out, educate the public, and procure signs.
Current State of the Law Currently, Vermont has a patchwork of rules and policies regarding firearms in government buildings. While there are no statutes prohibiting firearms in most state government buildings, including the State House, the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services (BGS) has established rules prohibiting firearms in these locations. However, these rules do not carry criminal liability. There is an exception for courthouses where a ban does carry criminal penalties.
Municipalities are currently restricted from regulating firearms by the Sportsman’s Bill of Rights. The report notes that some municipalities have attempted to regulate firearms but have been unsuccessful because of this bill.
Public buildings leadership responds to proposed bill
BGS: While the Vermont Buildings and Grounds Services Commissioner acknowledged that current rules are working well, she stated the department would seek clarity on expectations for oversight and enforcement if a criminal prohibition were enacted. The BGS also noted a gap in current rules regarding land and parking lots and would like to address this through the administrative rule-making process.
Sergeant at Arms: The Vermont State House Sergeant at Arms, along with Capitol Police, currently enforce the prohibition through voluntary compliance and recommend that, if a criminal prohibition is enacted, weapons be stored offsite. They also recommend that land around the State House be included in the ban.
Vermont League of Cities & Towns: The VLCT supports a default statewide ban with a municipal opt-out provision. They also recommend a definition of “municipal building.”
Clerks & Treasurers: The VMCTA anticipates mixed support for a statewide ban, with many members concerned about personal safety, and prefers to opt-out of the ban by a vote at the annual meeting.
Additional Considerations The report also addressed additional considerations including:
Dangerous Weapons: The report recommends including a definition of dangerous or deadly weapons.
Land: There is support for including land in the ban, while exempting public parks and hunting lands.
Vehicles: Stakeholders expressed concerns about unintentionally violating the law when carrying weapons in their cars, recommending that weapons securely stored in vehicles be exempt from the ban.
Comparison to Other States; The report also reviewed firearm policies in other states, noting that New York and Massachusetts have broad bans on firearms in government buildings, while Connecticut and Maine have partial bans, and New Hampshire and Rhode Island have no such prohibitions.
The report claims to emphasize balancing uniformity with local control, citing the diversity of Vermont’s communities and their varying needs.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Gunrights
First off, the definition of securely “stored in vehicles” needs to mean that the vehicle has not been left unlocked. There should be no requirement that a weapon needs to be in some kind of safe or secured by a secondary lock, other than the vehicle’s locked doors. Public officials need to realize that by prohibiting carry in more and more places means that there are going to be more guns available to those who make it their business to break into other people’s vehicles, and hence more stolen guns in circulation.
I think we need to leave our firearms laws alone. I mean, let’s look at where most of the gun incidents are coming from and who is/are the reason why. Chittenden County, namely Burlington, has seen a large uptick in gun incidents and they aren’t coming from local Vermonters who go about their daily lives. They ARE coming from gang members (Yes, I said the word “gang”) coming up from Hartford, CT, and Springfield, MA, running drugs. Notice how drugs often involve illegal guns?
Let us also not forget about those leading Burlington namely the mayor and the city council, all of whom lean left. The mayor has made it so that the police can’t do their jobs and Sarah George refuses to prosecute offenders. We don’t need more laws, we need more accountability against the offenders. Do that a few times and the message will get out that people aren’t going to take it anymore.
The Second Amendment (which many Vermont politicians think should not exist) is a constitutional problem for this legislation. To ban something that is a right, not a privilege, even applies to the Vermont nanny state. Firearms are allowed in Vermont by residents, criminals excepted. Freedom does have its risks but punishing Vermonter should not be a solution. Perhaps Vermont should begin punishing criminals again.
So all the elected D’s & P’s won’t be able to bring their weapons to work?
Just curious.. Is Vermont seeing a statewide uptick in violence in municipal buildings? Are there more gun crimes occurring in these places that I haven’t heard about? No? Then why is another “ban” being considered?.. Oh right.. we need to keep creeping towards a total ban of all firearms..I forgot.
I have not heard of any “upticks” in violence in municipal buildings, but people like Phil Baruth and Martin Lalonde would never let the constitution, or personal freedoms get in the way of taking gun rights away, I suspect that the Secretary of State is cut from the same left wingnut cloth .
Headline fixed:
Ban guns in buildings,
Secretary of State report recommends
What infringements Vermont has! P.S. Any infringement is repugnant to the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Therefore, such laws are null and void. Judges, law enforcement, and legislators are Required to uphold both the state and federal Constitution. Speak up Vermonters!
Headline fixed:
Group of Title 18 violating felons illegally use taxpayer funded resources to write illegal reports not authorized by the highest laws of the land. Prima facie evidence of conspiracy to violate rights, and derelict of duty, submitted via documents in an unsolicited report.
Because there is noting else they should instead be working on, and we want to be more like New York, and Massachusetts.
Maybe some elected officials need a refresher course on the Constitution, so with the uptick in crime and drugs, yeah posting a sign will definitely stop those who wish to cause you harm.
Just look at the crime rate in the Queen City, whoops I mean the cesspool, under the
control of its new DEI Mayor, who promotes this nonsense mandate in and around the city businesses, the same city that allows you to shoot up illegal drugs under their supervision, let that sink in !!
I guess this proposal from the Secretary of State, means the municipalities pushing for increased tax rates on everything, seem to make them nervous, I wonder why ??
But there’s no need to worry as Law-abiding gun owners aren’t whom you need to worry about, crooks, criminals, and junkies, there’s your problem and they are roaming the state, and signs mean nothing to them.
This is the United Nations agenda. Any gun control treaty with these one world crooks has to approved by the United State senate and this was never signed. Do the research. These crooks in this state are guilty of treason and should be remove from office. You not required to obey any law that is unconstitutional.
Before any time or money is spent on this absurd theft of Liberty, TABLE IT. You need to stop denying the right of self defense to the majority of law abiding residents who carry for obvious reasons. You WANT responsible citizens who are armed and well trained to deter random acts of misuse.
The failed liberal/ progressive criminal justice system in Vermont along with defunding law enforcement has increased the number of people who have purchased, trained with and carry. Why deprive them of liberty, safety and turn them into felons
Why isn’t this coming from the Police Departments, the Sherriff’s Association, the Gun Show, a hunter’s club??? Why should the Sec. of State be viewed as a source of wisdom on this topic? I guess Sarah just wants to push another UN Agenda.
Ha Ha Ha. I will not obey. I will not comply. When the little gun in a circle with a slash thru it stops criminals from carrying a gun where they want to, I might consider it.
Until then I will follow the Constitution.
THE 2nd AMENDMENT DOES NOT GRANT US THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE 2nd AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS – PERIOD! THEREFORE, ALL GUN CONTROL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL!
Up to their same old tricks, a Marxist doesn’t change their ways, weather they call themselves psycho prog, dem or rep, a Marxist is a communty organizer, trouble maker for God and republic, friend only to themselves.
Piss on you and the horse you rode in on…how we going to protect ourselves from the likes of you if we let you take our rights away?
That is why we have the right to bear arms.
Vote her out, in all due disrespect.
These proposed laws, like others this legislature has promoted and/or passed have absolutely nothing to do with public safety or the ability to stop criminals. I have been going to the Statehouse to testify on proposed gun laws for over 50 years. I would spend hours doing research to help the legislators understand why a proposed law is unconstitutional and/or would do nothing to help solve the purported problem the new law is supposed to solve. After doing all of the research I would then spend hours trying to condense my information into the 2 minute presentation I would be allowed to give – unless of course it got too late in the evening and the chair would declare it was time for all to go home. Then there would be more time devoted to reading my testimony fast enough to beat the 2 minute buzzer or light, but slow enough to be understood.
After all that work I would be devastated that the legislature still went ahead and did what they were going to do in the first place and passed another egregious affont to our constitutions and liberties. I finally realized that my testimony and the testimony of many others, plus the letters to the legislators was never going to sway them. The problem is that Lalonde, Baruth and their minions do not like guns-period. Because they don’t like guns and don’t want the public to have guns they will do anything that they can to make gun ownership more difficult and they will try to make gun owners look bad any way that they can.
They know that eliminating our right to carry arms will be very difficult and take lots of time to accomplish so they are doing the next best thing, restricting our right to carry in more and more places until there is really no reason to carry because there are so many places where it will be unlawful to carry. They must be stopped and the only real way to accomplish this is to keep sending more conservatives to our legislature.
We love you Ed!
Ed ,I recall, that back in the day, when the statehouse shut down for the day, the real deal making was conducted at the Thrush Tavern, as the lawmakers ,lobbyists, journalists and political types, all got together, from both sides of the aisle, and hashed out a comprise over bended elbows…too bad the Thrush closed.
The way to fight existing infringements such as the 72 hour wait and the magazine capacity limit is in the courts, and a suit has to be brought, which costs a lot of someone’s money and someone’s time. These things will eventually make it to the Supreme Court, and we have a very gun rights friendly court at present.
It just seems like a stupid waste of time and energy to propose this policy. Psychopaths with guns will obviously see places to conquer if their is a good chance they will not be repelled with equal force. What planet do people with ideas like this live on anyway?