by Chris Bradley

On January 28, VT Digger ran an opinion piece entitled “Honor Burlington’s vote on guns in bars.”

That opinion began with the statement “Last March, more than 86% of Burlington residents voted to ban guns from bars… .” That statement is not true.

As of March 2025, there were 28,952 registered voters in Burlington.   On Town Meeting Day 9,823 of Burlington’s registered voters voted.  That means that only about 33% of registered voters in Burlington voted, which in turn tells us that 19,129 Burlington voters – about 67% – CHOSE NOT TO VOTE. 

The apathy rate of Burlington voters is high, just like the city’s crime rate.

Of the 9,823 votes cast, 8,335 voters voted FOR the Charter Change to ban guns in Burlington bars.  The opinion piece’s first sentence then should have read:  “Last March, more than 28% of Burlington’s voters voted to ban guns in bars,” but that was just not sensational enough.

Per 24 VSA § 2295, a statute which has existed in Vermont for 37 years, a municipality in Vermont can only regulate the discharge of firearms.  They cannot, “…by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate hunting, fishing and trapping, or the possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or registration of traps, firearms, ammunition or components of firearms and ammunition.”

Arguably:  Burlington broke existing state law when the City Council voted and approved the wording of their “No Guns in Bars” ordinance, and they broke the law when they passed a resolution supporting it.

In “advertising” the Charter Change to Burlington’s voters, it was peddled as “No Guns in Bars.”  The ordinance, however, goes far beyond that:  It does affect bars, but it also affects restaurants that serve alcohol and hotels that have a bar.  It further extends to all the “premises” of those locations – which would mean parking lots and other areas.

When the Charter Change was first discussed in Senate Government Operations, Legislative Counsel opined that the title of the ballot item as well as the brief description that accompanied it, in addition to the wording of the Charter Change bill itself, were (and I quote) “constitutionally vague.”  Legislative Counsel then suggested changes to the wording of the bill/Charter Change to correct that vagueness.  With a designation of “vagueness” in reference to the Ballot item and its description however:  It directly calls into question whether the Burlington voters who voted for this ordinance really understood just how expansive the proposed ordinance was.

The two recent shooting events that happened in Burlington in relation to bars did not happen inside the bars, they happened outside those bars, and to the best we can determine, neither of the perpetrators were reported to be intoxicated. 

All that aside:  Today in Vermont we have a law that is already being used by some Burlington bars to request that no firearms be brought into their location, with that law being 13 VSA 3705 – Unlawful Trespass.  

That statute allows any business to put up a sign that states “No Guns Allowed.”  Under that law, ANY person who saw someone with a gun in that location could call the police, with the police taking care of the situation by either having the person remove the gun or otherwise arresting them.

So:  We have an existing law that does EXACTLY what the opinion piece author wants to accomplish (have Burlingtonians “feel safer” with no real “protection” beyond a sign), it is already being used by some Burlington bars, but now we need a new law to do the EXACT SAME THING?

Does the author understand that with the noted exceptions of schools, the legislature, courts, and polling places:  Law-abiding Vermonters have the right to carry a firearm in public so that they can “feel safe?”

Does the author know that more shootings take place in “gun free zones” than elsewhere?  

Does the author understand that putting up a sign and expecting criminals and people with evil intent to obey is more than just silly?

With the logic the author appears to support:  Burlington should paper their entire city with posters that say, “No Crime Allowed,” an action which should make even more Burlingtonians “feel safe.”  

Some people will “feel safe” with the implementation of a law that puts up a sign.  

Others however believe that without bag checks, frisking, screening equipment, and people trained to manage those things – a simple sign will not protect them or anyone else.  They choose to “feel safe” by carrying the means to defend themselves and those around them, which, like it or not, is their unalienable right.  

Gun safety and gun rights have coexisted in Vermont for years; law-biding gun owners are NOT the problem, it is just that we fully understand what “shall not be infringed” means.

Chris Bradley is a resident of Northfield.  He is also the Secretary / Treasurer of the Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association (VSRPA); the President and Executive Director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (VTFSC) and is a registered lobbyist for the VTFSC.