|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
City Council vote needs voter, Legislature approval
By Michael Bielawski
The Burlington City Council Monday, November 18 voted unanimously to have the question of a gun ban in bars go to the voters. The Council cites a decade-old affirmative vote by the citizenry in 2014 as a reason this must go forward.
“Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council approves the proposed Charter amendment,” the resolution states. It continues, “… which was previously placed before the voters in 2014, and requests that the Mayor warn the question therein and place it on the ballot for the Annual City Meeting to be held on March 4, 2025.”
The whole resolution can be downloaded from the meeting’s agenda.
The Legislature didn’t approve the 2014 initiative. “In the more than one decade since, the General Assembly still has not taken action to approve the proposed Charter change respecting guns in bars,” the resolution states.
It alleges that shootings have continued to plague the city. It states, “Whereas, gun violence continues to end, maim, and negatively impact human lives in our City…”
There is a fatal shooting incident referenced from last August on Church Street when a young woman leaving a bar had a gun and she shot and killed someone in what may have been a domestic dispute.
According to the September Burlington Police Chief’s Report there were only three gun incidents by mid-September 2019. Since then, gun incidents have risen sharply with 11 by that point last year. The worst year recently was 2022 when there were 23 gun incidents by that point.
The City Clerk will set public hearings, likely in January.
The state must approve
If the city’s voters in 2025 again approve this initiative, Vermont’s new ‘purple’ legislature, with more Republican representation in both the House and Senate, will ultimately decide along with the governor if this will become law. The resolution acknowledges this fact.
“Whereas, without a change to state law or a Charter amendment, 24 V.S.A. section 2295 prevents the City from adopting a ban on firearms at establishments with a first-class liquor license,” it states.
The law states, “Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city, or incorporated village, 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 or ammunition.”
It clarifies that municipal laws must not contradict the State Constitution. It states, “This section shall not limit the powers conferred upon a town, city, or incorporated village under subdivision 2291(8) of this title. The provisions of this section shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of a municipal charter.”
The Council urges that action be taken by lawmakers.
The resolution states, “The City Council renews its call and encourages the General Assembly not only to adopt the voter approved Charter change, but also to adopt statewide legislation prohibiting firearms in establishments with liquor licenses or authorizing any Vermont municipality to enact such a prohibition by ordinance.”
Do gun bans work?
The RAND Corporation did a study that was inconclusive in regards to having hard data to share. The study does suggest that signaling to criminals that civilian guns are banned may attract more, not less crime.
“Alternatively, if the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas,” the study states.
The Lancet Medical Journal also did a study on this question in 2023. These results too appear ambivalent.
“Of 150 active shooting cases, 72 (48.0%) were determined to have occurred in a gun-free zone. Of 150 controls where no active shooting occurred, 92 (61.3%) were determined to be gun-free,” it states.
Non-citizen voters may cast ballots
Burlington is one of three municipalities (along with Winooski and Montpelier) allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections and ballot items such as the bar gun ban approved by the City Council Monday night.
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Gunrights, Local government
Apparently the Burlington city council isn’t aware of the constitution…..
Apparently so is ms. mayor.
But wait, there’s more!
With Chief Murad announcing his resignation from BPD and both Deputy Chief’s impending retirements- Burlington is in a sour progressive pickle. A safe bet-Burlington’s irresponsible city council will require a DEI hire and crime is officially banned from the city, pending approval by the legislature.
Elections certainly do have consequence.
The Burlington city council is fully aware of the Constitution. That being said, Communists don’t believe in the Constitution and try to eliminate it every chance they get, it’s what Communists do but only if we let them. If the Constitution was followed, they would have no power
When you bring in gang bangers from down country, they screw it up for everyone.
Time to let the VT State Police profile on traffic stops, nip things in the bud, so to speak….and PC be damned!
So now illegals and criminals will come in with a gun because they don’t live by our rules and no one will be able to defend themselves! That makes no sense!! Those who have conceal carry permits are trustworthy and protectors.
Permits are for slaves. We have God’s permit in Vermont.
Anyone can carry in vt….no permits required
With the Heller and Bruen decisions, Courts have been given guidance on how to consider bans that impact the 2nd Amendment by using Text, History and Tradition.
As we consider the general topic of firearms in bars – this is NOT just bars – it’s anywhere where alcohol is served and also the property related to that venue.
Many Vermonters carry a firearm with them everyday. While gun crime is certainly a problem in Burlington (due to folks like Sarah George who do not believe in incarceration or stern consequences for breaking existing laws), it’s NOT the law-abiding citizens who are creating that mayhem, and in recent history there was only one incident related to a gun in a bar, but that shooting happened OUTSIDE the bar.
So now need yet another law aimed at criminal activity that can only have the effect of restraining the actions of law-abiding citizens, in a city that has become lawless, where the punishment for existing laws are not being applied?
Burlington Restaurants: Your city is already stained with rampant violent crime. Do you think that putting up roadblocks against the ability of a honest and law-abiding citizens to eat at your establishment will help your bottom line?
So: Burlington wants MORE gun free zones which only the law-abiding will adhere to while criminals will not.
Sorry, but using Text, History and Tradition as a lens: How many actually think that our forefathers, who generally went everywhere armed, would abide by a law that says you cannot defend yourself in a Tavern?
Assault Weapons Bans; Large Capacity Magazine Bans, Restrictions on gun ownership of 18-20 year olds; laws creating “sensitive places” where a citizen cannot be armed: All of these will be relegated to the trash heap of unconstitutional laws.
The 2nd Amendment is not a 2nd-Class right any longer – Get Used To It.
Until constitutional violators go to prison, we have nothing.
Chris Bradley
Thank you for saving me the time to write my comment as you stated everything I wanted to say!👏🏼
Another fine example of progressive morons in charge. Most if not all of the gun incidents have been caused by convicted felons who do not, I’ll repeat for slow people, do not obey laws. Unless every liquor establishment has a metal detector or a security person with a wand to detect guns at the door, only felons will have them. This could be another case of Baruth and Lalond, the two out of state legislators who hate the 2nd amendment will openly violate the VT and Federal constitutions.
If a law-abiding person is not allowed to carry a self-defense firearm there will be more gun crimes as the criminals learn that they will not be stopped by a good guy or gal with a legal gun. This is generally not a Vermont resident problem and never has been until Burlington and other sanctuary cities invited the diversity of felons and regular criminals from other states and countries to roam our cities and roads and use the courthouse as a tourist attraction for convicted felons while not holding them responsible for their crimes. So, instead of dealing with the real crime they pass a law for people who aren’t committing crimes. Maybe they should fully fund the police department and fire weak prosecutors instead.
Yeah because criminals obey laws lmao 🤣 you get what you vote for. A council and mayor both unqualified and useless. And now the police chief is leaving.
I got a great idea. Burlington should ban drug dealers and other lawbreakers from entering the city limits. Please don’t say that violates the U.S. Constitution because gun possession is a citizen’s right, and Burlington is trying to ban gun rights.
You are on to something, but not at the government level. Private businesses have the right to trespass whoever they want. With today’s technology we could easily have a surveillance network to ban all known criminals (including politicians) from our grocery stores, bars, clothing stores, parking lots, etc etc etc. File a lengthy no trespass order and use AI facial recognition to see if anyone on your trespass list enters, and have it automatically call the police with the description of the trespasser.
Business should stop building on rights of way, and move into HOAs and private roads.
Burlington is one step closer to imploding. Let them stay the course as it will be a civics study to be used as an example for decades to come of why socialist eutopia is but a pipe dream and unachievable. In the interim at least we will know where all the criminals will be………..
So this gaggle of fools, also known as the Burlington City Council, must have forgotten about the US Constitution and the Second Amendment, but then again they are progressives.
Private businesses can post rules for their establishments, and just to let the owners understand this decision, you will lose business from law-abiding citizens, but you
will get an increase of the low lives roaming the streets in this cesspool known as Burlington that will now infest your establishments, so who are you going to call, not the police, as this same gaggle of fools de-funded them and reduced its headcount?
Yes, the proposal makes no sense, but the council will feel better. Where do you get these clowns?
One more thing: all the current gun issues in Burlington were caused by whom, those that follow no laws ………………………….Fools in charge !!
PROGRESSIVE = COMMUNIST
How to Start a Profitable Side Hustle and Business in 2025
It looks like the Burlington political elite hate women empowerment, and are promoting the rape and assault of women bartenders, restaurant workers, or visitors. How progressive.
Most “progressives” and feminists dont want to admit that ANY restriction on gun rights disproportionately impacts women, because “the equalizer” is meant to level the physical size/strength playing field.
Government concealed weapon permits are for people who can not handle their own affairs and have to have others guide them. Sometimes it is not wise to brag.
A Liberal asked me once what I was afraid of because I conceal carry. My answer to him was, “Everyone.”
Aside from the state pre-emption law being violated, a gun ban for liquor establishments, if adhered to by those who typically carry would make for a lot of guns stolen out of parked vehicles. This is another example of a supposed “common sense gun law” that actually would result in MORE guns in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. Look for a push for a statewide liquor establishment ban by the usual suspects, LaLonde and Baruth and look for expansion to other “sensitive locations”. Remember, some of the democrats didn’t get the message after the election and to them it’s full speed ahead with the leftist agenda in their act of virtue signaling defiance of President-elect Trump….
Burlington just needs to ban the guys from out of state gangs, and it all stops.
Let me get this straight…
After all of the gun legislation that has already passed we have more drugs and more crime, and the solution is to enact more legislation?
These people are NUTZ!
This law will not stop me just like the little no weapons signs don’t stop me when I walk thru the door they’re on strapped. I do not obey unconstitutional laws. Armatissimie e liberissimi – Most armed and most free
Supreme Court Decision – Norton v Shelby County 1886
6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The US. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The Supreme Court’s decision is as follows; “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”. Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”.
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Thomas Jefferson: “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are authoritative, void and of no force”.
Alexander Hamilton explains unconstitutional law in Federalist No.76; “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarms only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage rather than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man maybe attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
This is another step of ending our right to carry by slowly eliminating places where one is allowed to carry. First it was the Statehouse, then hospitals, then polling places and now places where liquor is served. What is the use of having the right to carry if there aren’t any places where it is allowed? In addition to the those laws being unconstitutional, they are just plain silly. There will be no one checking at the doors with a metal detector so how will this be enforced? The only way to know that someone has a gun in a bar is if they use it and the people who are using a gun in a bar will use it regardless of the law. I used to spend hours researching and writing my testimony (then trying to condense my work into taking only the 2 minutes alloted) for a Statehouse hearing, believing that when the lawmakers heard why the proposed gun laws won’t work, backed up by facts, they would take notice, deliberate, and eventually give up on passing that law. It took years before I finally realized that those lawmakers don’t give a damn about reason, facts, figures or history. They don’t like guns, don’t believe that you should have them and will do anything they can to make owning a gun more difficult. I believe that the next time we get a chance to testify we should let them know that we know that they are just trying to take our guns. It’s kind of like the joke “let’s give them a fair trial then hang them”.
If the only purpose of such a law is to make anti-gun liberals feel good about themselves and feel useful, then it will be successful…