|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
S.131 and the end of Dillon’s Rule? Burlington gun ban tests Vermont’s Constitution and State authority
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
The Vermont Senate has passed S.131, a bill that would approve a Burlington charter change banning firearms in any establishment licensed to serve alcohol for on-premises consumption. While narrowly framed as a local safety measure, the legislation carries far broader implications—challenging both Vermont’s adherence to Dillon’s Rule and the plain-language right to bear arms enshrined in the state’s Constitution.
Now in the hands of the House Government Operations Committee, chaired by Rep. Matthew Birong (D Addison-3), S.131 awaits either advancement or quiet death-by-delay. But if passed, it could crack the legal bedrock that has defined Vermont’s state-local relationship for over a century.
Dillon’s Rule: Vermont’s Operating System
Vermont is a strict Dillon’s Rule state, one of only ten where local governments have no inherent authority and must be granted specific powers by the legislature. This doctrine, named for 19th-century Iowa Supreme Court Justice John Forrest Dillon, holds that:
“A municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers: (1) granted in express words; (2) necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and (3) essential to the accomplishment of the corporation’s purposes—not simply convenient, but indispensable.” (NACo Research Brief, Jan. 2004)
This framework was designed to curtail political corruption and policy fragmentation by placing a tight legal leash on municipalities. Over time, many states transitioned to Home Rule models that presume local autonomy. But Vermont has not.
As Eric Davis noted in the Addison Independent noted in 2021, this means that even the most localized policy—zoning changes, public health measures, or in this case, a narrowly targeted firearms ban—requires explicit legislative blessing. That’s what S.131 seeks to do.
What S.131 Does
S.131 approves a Burlington charter amendment that prohibits carrying or possessing a firearm in any building or on any premises licensed to serve alcohol for on-site consumption. Exceptions are made for law enforcement, military personnel, and the business owner if not otherwise prohibited by law.
But here’s the legal kicker: the bill expressly supersedes 24 V.S.A. §§ 2291(8) and 2295, Vermont’s preemption laws which bar municipalities from regulating firearms. Without S.131, Burlington cannot enforce the change—even though the measure passed a public vote.
The Real Battle: State Constitution vs. Local Law
This isn’t just a Dillon’s Rule fight—it’s a constitutional one.
Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution is unambiguous:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…”
Unlike many other states, Vermont’s Constitution includes no qualifiers about the manner of carry, scope of that right, or authority for local restriction. It is a broad, affirmative grant of individual liberty. And that creates a direct conflict: can a town, by local vote and legislative approval, override a constitutional right?
Legal precedent in Vermont suggests not. In City of Montpelier v. Barnett, the Vermont Supreme Court struck down the city’s attempt to restrict swimming, boating, and fishing on Berlin Pond—its sole drinking water source—ruling that only the State had authority to regulate public waters. Even though Montpelier owned the land beneath the pond and sought to protect its public health infrastructure, the Court held that regulatory authority had not been delegated. The decision underscored the strict limits placed on municipalities under Dillon’s Rule.
(City of Montpelier v. Barnett, 2012 VT 59, 192 Vt. 441)
If a municipality can’t regulate fishing in a pond it owns, how can it regulate the constitutionally protected right to bear arms—without triggering a constitutional challenge?
A De Facto Home Rule Backdoor?
Supporters of S.131 argue it reflects local democracy in action—Burlington residents voted for it, and the Legislature’s role is merely ratification. But this sidesteps the deeper issue: once the Legislature starts carving out exceptions to preemption at the request of individual towns, Dillon’s Rule begins to erode.
And more than that: Article 16 becomes subject to local reinterpretation, one town at a time.
Today it’s a firearms ban in bars. Tomorrow? Could Barre restrict magazine capacity? Could Brattleboro pass mandatory registration? Could Montpelier ban open carry on public streets?
If the Legislature sets a precedent that charter amendments can override constitutional protections, the concept of statewide constitutional rights becomes negotiable—and conditional on local sentiment.
What Happens Next
If Rep. Birong does not bring S.131 to a vote this session, the bill remains dormant until January. That delay might be politically convenient. But make no mistake: the precedent is now in play.
If passed, S.131 would do more than authorize a gun ban in Burlington bars. It would:
- Set a precedent for local nullification of state preemption laws
- Invite municipal reinterpretation of constitutional rights
- Erode the legal firewall of Dillon’s Rule in Vermont
- Trigger potential constitutional litigation over Article 16
Final Thought
Vermont’s Constitution doesn’t say “the people have a right to bear arms, unless the city council says otherwise.” It says they have that right—period.
The Legislature now faces a decision: uphold that right uniformly across the state, or begin authorizing its erosion town by town.
S.131 may be small in scope, but its implications are not. In the balance hangs nothing less than the integrity of Vermont’s Constitution—and the future of Dillon’s Rule in the Green Mountain State.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: News Analysis
If we had representatives that understood we are a republic and not a democracy they would shout loud and early, it’s going to get a no or veto from me.
What does the Gov say?
What does the Lt. God say?
They and the entire VTGOP and really the entire VTDems should be saying NO, NO, NO, this goes against our constitution, aside from it making no sense.
But we’ll hear nothing of the sort, mark my words.
Their handlers have told them what to do, all hail Agenda 21.
as burlington goes the state goes, its simple to see. time to put them in the spot light.
This is so much bigger than even the constitutional defense, this is how our country has and will continue to be subverted. Notice they talk about local democratic decisions, our ancestors ABHORRED a democracy, they know it’s the down fall of any good, well lead country, regardless of if it’s an oligarch (most common form of government), kingdom or republic.
It is this democracy that will take down a republic, because it does the opposite of a republic. A republic defends the one person against the many wishing to rule or take away from them. A republic is the most empowering, best defense against racism, against tyranny, against criminal activity so far devised.
In subverting a country or state….they have long planned to take it to the cities, because they can not do what they want on a federal or state level because it goes against the constitutions and rule of law, make no mistake this is the powerful tool they are using.
They are also using this in
education
health care
non-profits
and the biggest local scam is
ZONING
The zoning in Vermont is not home grown or local, it is a direct cut and paste from Agenda 21, United Nations plan to take over the world. This very active in our state with the promise to take over 50% of our forest land that is privately owned and steward.
Build Back Better is not Biden’s slogan it is the United Nations slogan.
along with you will own nothing and be happy…their own words.
They never say who will own everything and to whom you will pay rent to do they?
My friends at VTGOV will perhaps disagree, but this is WAY, WAY bigger than 2a/article 16….way bigger.
This bill cuts to the core, are we a republic or democracy. Those that wish to do us harm have been working toward a democracy for many decades,
This is how they kept slavery in practice, a democracy.
This is how they take the rights from the vulnerable, a democracy.
This is how they steal your money, with a democracy.
This is how they the jail you, with democracy.
This is how they take your property, with a democracy.
This is how they take away your property rights and use, with a democracy.
The majority voted, you have to comply.
A republic defends the one person against those who wish to do them harm.
Look at the voting records of slaves, it’s rather enlightening.
And today we have complete cowards and traitors in VTGOP. (not, all but many)
The VTGOP should be singing together the sweet song of a republic.
You are spot on.. this has much farther reaching implications than most people realize.. I’m sure most conservative minded people don’t care what happens in Burlington.( they’ve made their bed)..but if this is allowed to pass eventually we’ll see it coming to all of our towns. I guarantee our Legislature sees this as a back door into their long term gun control scheme. Time to start screaming!
Demoprogs need some examples of the potential for this precedent-setting monster they are creating:
Consider that a conservative town in the NEK could then attempt to ban the practice of certain medical procedures such as pregnancy termination (in violation of the recently- amended Vermont Constitution) or ban same-sex marriage? Any law that supplementally protects and preserves a Constitutional right is a CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, and the Burlington proposal stands to be in violation of Vermont’s Sportsman’s Bill of Rights. Burlington already has big problems with people being afraid to park their cars and patronize their businesses SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF leftist policies. Do they really want to compound this avoidance by leaving law-abiding people defenseless?
Who will obey such a decree ? Honest, law abiding citizens. That’s it . So why ? Subjugation . What else could it be ? A criminal will not obey a paper law, whether it’s in a book of statutes, or posted on a door of an establishment. “First you censor the act, then the written word, and then the thought” It’s been tried before, and because some believe that the premise can be achieved, it will be tried again, and it will fail again . Criminals are, and always will be criminals, that is why the right to self defense is enshrined in virtually every document dealing with human rights. Anybody that would suggest otherwise should have their reasons and their character questioned.
Patrick, “Who will obey such a decree ? Honest, law abiding citizens. That’s it .”
Perhaps, but what about honest, law abiding, constitution revering citizens??? That would be me, I will have no problem ignoring any “law” that violates my constitutional rights, thus making me a “criminal”. This brings up the point that I’ve asserted to many for years, if the powers can create an environment whereby virtually everyone becomes a “criminal” than they have created their intended oppressive totalitarian state, where everyone is one anonymous tip away from forfeiture and imprisonment.
I think that Burlington officials should realize that many folks, including those who lawfully carry firearms are currently VOLUNTARILY banning THEMSELVES from establishments that serve alcohol, as well as any other businesses and venues in their city. By this proposal , and other policies already in place, the moonbat voters of Burlington are slowly killing the businesses that provide the city with revenue, and driving up their own taxes. This would only apply to the law-abiding, and cannot be enforced and would be completely ineffective without TSA-style magnetometer or pat down searches at the entrances. Without such doorway inspections, this proposal is purely symbolic. Firearm carriers who comply would likely be leaving behind their firearms in vehicles, making them vulnerable to thievery which has become epidemic in Burlington. This “firearm safety measure” would consequently be putting more guns in the hands of criminals. What is really nefarious about this referendum as that is does not just apply to Burlington. Since the city cannot legally impose this restriction without violating Vermont’s statewide firearms pre-emption law, demoprogs know that this can only be accomplished by a repeal of this pre-emption. That will certainly be their subsequent objective in Montpelier in their continuing efforts to incrementally restrict the firearms rights of Vermonters. Vermont doesn’t have a gun problem, we have a criminal problem…brought on by “progressive” prosecutors, a “progressive” Attorney General and “progressive” city and town governance.
Simple Flatlander mentality, designed to control. To hell with Constitutions, we’ll regulate. Baruth (NY) at al must be salivating with joy. Seems he taught English in a college, but doesn’t understand English. It’s his district. Press the flesh.
Thank you, Dave Soulia, for another excellently informative, succinct, and well-written article. I always much better understand an issue after reading your research and perspective on it.
What is that smell???? Oh, that is your tax money being burned up by these cave monkeys in the Vermont state house wasting time and destroying your rights. Burlington is begging for help because of lack of business and all of the crime in the city.
Well, “no gun zones” have successfully stopped school shootings, right? So many legislators seem incapable of thinking outside the box. They never seem to see the ramifications of their self-satisfying views and actions. As one other commentator stated, it could work to our benefit here in the NEK as our towns could start banning things like wind towers, solar panels, EV stations, drag queen story hours, etc.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) clearly states a law repugnant to the Constitution is void. There’s also the Supremacy clause ( Article VI, clause 2 )that clearly states Federal law takes precedence over state law. Stay within your bounds, and oh, return to school and learn budgeting 101 and take up something you all are really accountable for, this states fiscal budget.
Brian you are absolutely correct about Marbury v. Madison (1803) but what do Communists care about following our Constitution. It is an impediment to their power. They have ignored the Heller vs the District of Columbia 2008 and McDonald vs Chicago 2010. Both decisions affirm that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that citizens are allowed firearms in common use. And now they ignore the Bruen decision.
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!
It’s why they say democracy all the time. Democracy is how they kept slavery going for so long. The republic and those following Jesus Christ are how slavery ended.
How many people are familiar with the book of Philemon? That was the spark that started over 2000 years ago, the thought that all people are God’s children, even slaves.
The intent here is apparently to reduce shootings in bars. The impact of this initiative would be that law abiding folks would acquiesce to this intrusion but scoundrels and rapscallions would be carrying. Wouldn’t it be safer, considering the deterrent effect, if we required all those in the bar to be carrying? Lord the difficulties we face trying to manage an unruly populous.