by Chris Bradley

The report from the Secretary of State (“Assessment of Statewide Firearms Ban for State  and Municipal Buildings”) is a tragically flawed report from its inception. As opposed to  asking the Secretary of State if such a ban were even needed, the request was instead specifically focused on how such a ban would be implemented. 

Related news: Ban guns in municipal buildings, Secretary of State report recommends

With the 1^st Amendment, there is a term called “prior restraint”, whereby the government  seeks to control actions of media by preventing them from publishing certain topics. With  few exceptions: Prior restraint on the 1^st amendment is usually found unconstitutional.  People are not gagged from speaking because they MAY yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.  Instead, that sort of deed is punished by law afterwards. We believe that if prior restraint is  applicable to the 1^st Amendment, it appears logical that this could and should be applied to the 2^nd Amendment where it will also be ruled as unconstitutional. What would occur  under such an unwieldy ban is the idea of depriving a law-abiding citizen from the ability to  defend themselves, because of a remote possibility that someone may use a firearm  inappropriately. This would be especially true when no other arrangements exist beyond a sign. 

The Legislature, in directing the Secretary of State to include a specific list of  “stakeholders”, failed to consider having ANY organization representing the interests of citizens in the development of this report, such as our organization; it did not even include  the Defender General’s Office which serves to represent and defend the interests of  Vermont’s citizens. 

The report states that the Secretary of State “…initially contacted the organizations  (stakeholders) in November 2024”. The final report was then submitted to the Legislature  on January 23, which appears to be a very abbreviated time schedule for the  development of an in-depth and well-considered report.  

Further, while the Executive Summary indicated that it would consider “how to balance a  desire for personnel protection” (page 2), this topic is only broached in a single paragraph (page 14) which begins with the sentence “There is an inherent tension between the  personal desire of some to carry a weapon for personal protection…” This is a  mischaracterization, as it should read: “There is an inherent tension between THE  CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of some to carry a weapon for personal protection…”.

The sad fact is that the genesis of this report was a bill submitted in 2024, H.525, which  sought to ban firearms in municipal buildings. That bill was brought forward because of one miscreant in the town of Mendon who was harassing and threatening town personnel.  Numerous laws already exist that could have and should have been used on this individual,  such as:  

• 13 VSA 1023 (Simple Assault), 

• 13 VSA 1024 (Aggravated Assault), or  

• 13 VSA 1025 (Reckless Endangerment), 

• 13 VSA 1026 (Disorderly Conduct),  

• 13 VSA 1026a (Aggravated Disorderly Conduct, 

• 13 VSA 1061 (Stalking),  

• 13 VSA 1702 (Criminal Threatening), 

• 13 VSA 4054 (Extreme Risk Protection Orders) 

IF such a new law is warranted, then the recommendation of having an “OPT OUT”  provision is backwards as it should be “OPT IN”. The reasoning for this is simple: Today  there are no such laws. For citizens to be aware that this is being considered in their  municipality, the municipality should put the OPT IN Question on its Town Meeting ballot – thus better ensuring that residents are better informed of the change in law. 

An often-overlooked aspect of the right to keep and bear arms is the concept of deterrence,  a desirable crime-prevention measure which directly results from a law-abiding citizen’s  right to self-defense. 

This powerful force acts 24/7/365 and requires no risk, no firing of weapons, no showing of  firearms, with little to no demonstrable danger to other citizens or anyone else other than  criminals and those with evil intent. 

As a simple matter of logic: Criminals want victims, they do not want adversaries. The fact  that some citizens may be able to defend themselves creates uncertainty as to the  helplessness of all potential victims of crime/evil and therefore provides safety to those  who conscientiously object to bearing personal protection. 

Anti-self-defense, anti-deterrence, and anti-firearm bills deprive the innocent of the right to  defend themselves, while having NO Measurable effect on criminals or criminal behavior.

Such laws are unconstitutional, they are against the public welfare, they are prejudicial and  increase danger to the public – especially in “sensitive places” – by depriving those who are  subject to sudden acts of evil from the basic right of self-defense. 

While the report gives one paragraph on the United States Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS)  actions to date regarding the 2^nd Amendment, it fails to mention what Constitutional experts were consulted in crafting this proposed ban. While it does reference Heller and  Bruen – it fails to mention the impact of Caetano and MacDonald. In referencing Bruen, it  fails to mention that the whole issue of “sensitive places” is being challenged across the  country in various District Court of Appeals, with situations where these lower courts such  as the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has opined that Hospitals and Medical Facilities are NOT  sensitive places. 

Vermonters have been relatively unfettered in their right to bear arms since this stae was  established. How can an outright ban NOT be considered as an “infringement”?  

While the concept of putting up a sign with no enforcement behind it gives the appearance  of safety, there is no real safety unless there are expenditures made for magnetometers,  Xray machines and related personnel. 

The VTFSC does not support this report and will oppose any bill that is based on it.

The author is a Northfield resident and president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.