|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
S.131 violates the 1987 Sportsmen’s Bill of Rights law, critics say
By Guy Page
The Vermont Senate this afternoon, Thursday April 24 will debate a proposed amendment to the Burlington City Charter banning firearms in bars.
Supporters say it’s needed to reduce the increase in homicides in downtown Burlington and elsewhere. Critics say it violates a landmark 1987 state law pre-empting municipal gun control.
S.131 was approved by Senate Government Operations by a 3-2 vote, with Democrats Vice-Chair Tanya Vyhovsky, Rebecca White and Allison Clarkson, all Democrats, voting yes. Republicans Brian Collamore (the chair) and Larry Hart voted no. [corrected vote from earlier edition.]
A lively floor debate is expected when the Senate convenes at 1 PM. S.131 is the fourth item on the agenda. The session will be live-streamed. Rutland Sen. Terry Williams, and perhaps Sen. Pat Brennan of Chittenden County may speak in opposition, State House observers say.
At issue is a proposed municipal charter change banning possession of firearms in the city’s bars, following a fatal shooting outside a Church Street bar last year. Aaliyah Johnson, 22, was charged with first-degree murder for the shooting death of Teville Williams, 30, of Stowe, as reported by Vermont News First reporter Mike Donoghue.
This isn’t the first time the City of Burlington has sought the Legislature’s permission to pass a gun control ordinance. Several 2014 ordinances approved by city voters couldn’t get legislative approval, which is required under the state constitution.
To date, all such efforts in Burlington and other communities have failed, in part because a 1987 law passed that specifically pre-empted municipal gun control laws.
Commonly known as the Sportsmen’s Bill of Rights, the 1987 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.”
Opponents of S.131 say the Sportsmen’s Bill of Rights makes the bill unlawful because of the first six words: “Except as provided by law.” At present, no state law allows municipalities to regulate firearms possession. Should the Legislature pass such a law, city ordinances might escape the SBOR pre-emption. But it hasn’t, so they don’t.
The law has been challenged by gun-control groups such as Gunsense, whose executive director Conor Casey (now a legislator from Montpelier) was quoted in VTDigger saying “We’d like to start in a few communities to sort of build a critical mass to get some support going at the Statehouse.”
S.131 has shuttled back and forth from the floor to the committee and back to the floor several times this week, as supporters seek language that passes constitutional muster and might satisfy enough senators to vote yes. The latest version of the bill more strictly defines where guns could be banned to the actual bar, and not on property on or around the bar as well.
The incident that prompted the bill actually occurred outside the bar, when Johnson allegedly shot dead Williams outside the bar following an altercation inside the bar.
Senators may be contacted by their constituents by leaving a message at the Sgt.-At-Arms office of the State House at 802-828-2228, or by email.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Gunrights
Other than this would be in violation of Article 16 of the Vt Constitution criminals will pay no attention to it.
This bill should have stayed on the wall. Why did the chair take it up?
So, the fatal shooting was actually outside the bar, looks like it to me the assailant honored the potential law before it was enacted. OR will next year’s addition include within 100 feet of a bar? You know the camel saying, “getting its nose under the tent”.
This is how they do it, it’s the plan, working with cities as they can’t get things done on a federal or state level, they are doing this attempted work around
We can do better, much better without much effort.
This is how they subvert the state and it’s pesky piece of paper.
First their PC bulldoggie lets these gang bangers in, wouldn’t let the police do their jobs, then these so called cry baby judges slap them on the hands with a ruler so they are shooting up the state!
What did you expect!
Now they want to take your guns, but that was their aim all along, then their hero Bernie flying around on private jets, eating in the best places, looking at AOC like Jimmy Carter did with lust in his heart, on the taxpayer dime, while raking in the bucks, hand over fist, from big pharma, and the K Street lobbyists, while the masses they rep back home are having a hard time paying all the taxes they raise, until they drive the born and bred Vermonters out of the state, broke, looking for a better place to raise their families.
They disgust me, every last one of them ,they are cow pies stuck on my boot.
Vote each and every last one of them out from local office, state office and national office.
They have ruined the state and the country!
This will mean the police, or as we know as public servants, will have to disarm and place their firearms in safe storage area in their cars before entering the bar. Equal justice under the law. Vermont is a constitutional pervert state and the statehouse leaders will not enforce article 16. Remember the lock down and forced COVID KILLL SHOT. All of these crooks were paid with taxpayer dollars while the private sector went broke.
The incident referenced in the article that sparked this legislation occured OUTSIDE of the bar, not inside of it. I don’t think this will change anything. Want to fix the gun problem in the Socialist Republic of Chittenden County, namely Burlington, have Sarah George start doing her job with drug crimes.
I mean, I’m sure that the criminal element will abide by this new ordinance.
So, a nice hodgebodge of laws, from municipality to municipality, whether a given item is protected by the Vermont constitution or not. I hope those Dome Dwellers keep that in mind when the precedent set attacks abortion as a municipality to municipality ban issue.
You are tying the Police’s hands behind their backs while not stopping the criminals from carrying . Are you using your common sense? I would never agree to be a policeman in Burlington under these circumstances.
This bill is just more liberal nonsense, first off most that support this BS, wouldn’t know one end of a gun from the other, all hype but they want to ban law-abiding citizens from there Constitutional rights, both Federal & state, yes they know how to use a firearm, and when to use a firearm, not the POS, that will rob and shoot you as
like all the liberal nonsense laws or provision will not accomplish anything, whoops I’m wrong it will cause a drop in local business revenue….. good luck staying afloat.
Ever since Burlington has became a cesspool of crime & drugs and throw in the plethora of homeless flopped on every street in the city, and there main concern is carrying a firearm in any establishment serving alcohol, Burlington with it’s new DEI hired Mayor and her gaggle of fools in the city council think keeping law-abiding from entering a business, but they don’t worry about the criminals…… did I mention fools in charge.
Can the Mayor supply the crime statistics for Burlington and show the number of crimes and how many where firearm related, and how many had prior convictions
” criminals ” with firearms, I’ll wait, as I want to see the staggering number of firearm instances related to bar activities …………………………agenda driven BS.
Wake up people, they are not thinking of your safety when pushing S.131 for the fouth time, something people with common sense don’t want or need !!
Don’t Take Your Guns to Town, Bill………?
What happened to the anti-crime kiosk, I thought that was the master plan?
No other crime prevention or public safety measures should even be considered until the kiosks are in place and a long-term efficacy study has been done. What are they thinking?
It’s very obvious, these Liberal “anti-human” power crazed bunch herein listed want you unprotected while protecting the criminals, mainly those that “found VT”, henceforth the public is unarmed and those that are sportsmen. Baruth was afraid when walking in a parking lot, he had to go by some guys wearing Orange, just talking. It’s in a VDC or True North Reports article. He needs a mental test and many such others that should be a mandatory part of the swearing in process resulting on observing how they think and adhere to the oath. Trump has taken such a mental test and the result, had flying colors Don’t believe Biden took one, he was well protected and controlled.
Everyone needs to carry a gun. Eventually, all that need to be eradicated will be accomplished and only the good guys will be walking the streets and woods, at any hour, unafraid. There will be no bad guys and no crime.
So you are in favor of eviscerating the preemption statute ? Maybe you weren’t living in Vermont before 24 VSA 2295 simplified gun regulations ? I’m sure that prior to that, at one point or another, I probably was in violation of local regulations . I don’t know how many times, or even what regulations I may have violated, as when every town is allowed to set it’s own regulations regarding firearms it’s crazy ! Is this how our Second Amendment/Article 16 rights will be lost, like boiling a frog ? “Gun free” zones do absolutely no good at all when it comes to deterring criminals. If a gang banger from Springfield Mass. wants to shoot a local distributor in front of, or in a bar in Burlington, the last thing he is going to consider is whether there is a local ordinance against concealed carry or not . Laws like S131 are not only misguided, but dangerous as they disarm honest citizens, and prevent the possibility for them to defend themselves, and/or, if need be, others . I have never heard of anybody saying “damn, I’m glad I did not have a firearm to defend myself,” or “I’m glad that I, my wife, or other loved one got shot, and all I could do was watch, and wait for the ambulance, and cops to get here ! Yet that is what politicians propose. The whole concept of “gun control” is just so disingenuous that it is farcical ! Politicians do not care about citizens, if they did they’d be offering courses in gun safety, and an advanced course in properly handling firearms, not gender diversity, and/or how to subvert political policy, and/or politicians through violence . As a kid growing up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, if you’d have told me that the Legislature of the State of Vermont would be on it’s way to becoming a Socialist Politburo I’d have laughed ! I’m not laughing any more .
Most Sincerely,Pat Finnie
OK HERE WE GO AGAIN; Diddleing around with gun rules under the rational that you can manage citizen behavior by legislating their constitutional rights — delusional, intrusive to our heritage of liberty, and insulting. STOP IT — JUST LEAVE US ALONE.
Guy Page and citizens of Vermont; In our representative form of government it should be true that members of either house at the capital give heavy weight to the opinions of their constituents. Hence the appeal for constituents to contact their representatives. Of course, every citizen should be doing that on a regular basis, not just for one “hot” topic but for any concerns, regardless of this week’s agenda.
One would hope, or should be able to rely on, office holders upholding both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. That is their sworn duty. Citizens who track their representatives’ voting record find out too late if their people in the state house are worthy of reelection.
The duty of citizens is to guide and direct their representatives in addition to voting in every election.
Laws passed in the state house and signed into law affect more than just one districts’ residents. Representatives should welcome comments from every state citizen regardless of their district of residence. Stand up and speak up America.
This bill should have stayed on the wall.
Yes, on the wall for target practice.
When some legislator’s son committed suicide, they used it as an excuse to pass the useless three-day waiting period to purchase a firearm on people who already own guns. Now they are trying to pass a law so firearms can’t be carried in a bar when the incident was not inside the bar. The Communist/Progressives will use any excuse to incrementally take away 2nd Amendment rights. This bill S.131 will pass in the Senate because they do not care about the Vermont or U.S. constitutions. All they care about is advancing their political agenda.
The question is will “Republican” King Philip the Scott 1st Eunuch King of Castrati veto the bill forcing the legislature to override the veto or will he sign it, or will he be a coward and not sign it letting it pass into law like he did the 3 Day Waiting Period Bill.
https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2023-06-02/vermont-gun-bill-including-72-hour-waiting-period-becomes-law-phil-scott
We all remember how he promised to protect Vermonter’s 2nd Amendment rights when he first ran for office. Then he stabbed us all in the back and signed the unconstitutional 30rd magazine ban. That bill included an increase on age to purchase a firearm to 21, a ban on bump stocks, and put in universal background checks prohibiting the private sale of firearms without going through a dealer.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/vermont-governor-signs-bill-that-raises-age-to-buy-firearms-makes-it-easier-to-take-guns-from-people-who-pose-threat
All the testimony and constitutional facts presented to the legislature like Gun Owners of Vermont and the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s does every time they ram more gun control down our throats is useless. The Commiecrats don’t care, there is no consequence for their illegal unconstitutional actions, and they know it. It’s why they do it.
I for one whenever possible WILL NOT OBEY OR COMPLY TO ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.
The 2nd Amendment was enumerated in our Bill of Rights by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to give “We the People” the means to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from those who would take them from us. You can’t take away someone’s right to free speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion without first taking away their ability to resist. 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!
Basically they will break our laws to create this ordinance resulting in only criminals will carry guns.