Baruth says gun carry ban not needed if problem solved by current law – and it is

by Chris Bradley

If you are not aware of S.30, it is a bill that relates to prohibiting the possession of firearms at three types of locations, and as portrayed it garnered a number of Senate co-sponsors. 

In describing the need for this bill, it has been repeatedly stated that there is no law on the books today that would prevent someone from bringing a firearm into one of these prohibited locations, and further, that there was no law that would force them to be removed.  Quoting the lead sponsor:  “As it stands now, if someone carries a gun into a hospital, or if they carry a gun into a child care center and someone sees the gun and asks them to leave, they have no recourse, a police officer can’t get rid of that gun, and the person can stand on their rights to have the gun in the environment.

Chris Bradley, VT Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

In point of fact, there is just such a law in statute today that handles the exact situation the sponsor describes, and it’s use is common.  It’s in use at hospitals, Vermont’s government buildings, as well as numerous other locations across Vermont, and it comes into play with the signs you see at the entrances to these locations that say something similar to “Firearms / Weapons Prohibited”.  The statute behind those signs is 13 VSA 3705 – Unlawful Trespass.

If someone were to go past such a sign into any one of those places carrying a firearm and they are seen doing that, then under current law (13 VSA 3705) that situation can be effectively dealt with.  Under 3705:  Police have a tool they can use to immediately correct the problem of a person carrying a firearm into a prohibited place; it allows them to remove that person; it allows them to cite or arrest and at that point they can confiscate weapons.   That’s current law today.

To quote the lead sponsor one more time:  “… if in fact there are other laws that do what S.30 purports to do, then I would say it is a strong argument for not passing it.” 

I submit that 13 VSA 3705 does today what S.30 purports to do, making S.30 unnecessary.

Chris Bradley

Executive Director & President – Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

Categories: Gunrights

Tagged as: ,

11 replies »

  1. It will be worth watching closely, the recent incident at University Mall in So Burlington and how the good professor Baruth reacts to that and his S.30 bill. One might think that the incident bolsters Baruth’s proposal- but does it interfere with the progressives defund police/systemic racism rhetoric. Regardless, we may find that any law has no teeth in the eyes of Chittenden Cty. States Atty. Sarah George. If the current suspect is apprehended, will George prosecute? or will this 18 year old be released without bail( her stated preference) never to show in court? Baruth can put forth all the “progressive” gun legislation he wants, but if George and ultimately AG Donovan ignore the laws currently in place….All S30 and13 VSA 3705 do is keep honest folk restricted from their 16th Amendment rights.

  2. As of today’s Senate Judiciary Com. meeting Sen. Baruth suggested that a couple of lines be added to 3705 in place of S30, to accomplish what he contends needs to be done to create more target rich, excuse me, “gun free zones”. Sen. Baruth just doesn’t get it. While he and the rest of the lefty Dems, and Progs. here under the Golden Dumb want more gun restrictions, other states are emerging from more restrictions and opening up to up more legal carry be it concealed, not concealed, no permit necessary, may issue to shall issue, whatever. People in other states get it, restrictions only work on law abiding citizens (prey) not those with criminal intent. (predators)

  3. S.30 just another bill being pushed by Sen.Baruth and his crusade to make law-abiding citizens criminals,
    by twisting terminology to fit his anti- gun agenda, we already have laws and regulations on the books !!

    What the Senator doesn’t get is that criminals never follow the laws or regulation. Hopefully the Judiciary
    Committee, sees S.30 is not needed .

  4. Thank you Chris for being our voice in the capitol. Many of us believe in the constitution and bill of rights but do not possess the gift of being able to speak up on the spur of the moment. We owe you for being there for us. I hope you will continue to keep a close watch on those that would strip us of ever more of our rights and freedom and keep us informed of their actions.

  5. I hope this works, but my gut tells me that they are working on something that will be more problematic than anything we have seen. That needs to be kept in the scope.

  6. Since going to a public place with any weapon with intent to cause mayhem is already prohibited by criminal statute, Baruth’s proposal is a solution in search of a problem. If someone is intent on criminal harm, one additional law is not going to dissuade them. A responsible person who carries a firearm for defense of self and others considers that tool to be a SHIELD, not a WEAPON. History has shown that a legally defined “gun free zone” is simply a target-rich environment for someone intent on mayhem by any method. Ever since cutbacks to police have become politically fashionable, it is unconscionable that anyone would propose restrictions on those who take responsibility for their own protection. Agreed, it’s a dangerous world…precisely why any further restrictions to self defense should not even be considered.

  7. “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.” – AYN RAND

Leave a Reply