It’s good to be the king

by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com

Late-session bill gets special treatment

A late-session firearms bill introduced by Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth would create a statewide ban on firearm possession inside Vermont bars and restaurants licensed to serve alcohol, raising both public-safety and constitutional questions as lawmakers move the proposal through the final weeks of the 2026 session.

S.329, introduced by Baruth, would add a new section to Vermont’s criminal code making it illegal for a person to “knowingly possess a firearm on premises where alcohol is licensed to be served.” A violation would carry a penalty of up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The bill would also require owners or operators of covered premises to post notice of the prohibition at each public entrance.

The proposal was taken up after receiving special consideration because the Legislature’s crossover deadline had already passed. Vermont Daily Chronicle reported that Baruth received approval from the Senate Rules Committee to exempt the bill from the Senate’s normal filing deadline, which had passed months earlier. The vote was 3-2, with the committee’s two Republican members opposed.

The Senate Rules Committee consists of Baruth, Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Sen. Ginny Lyons, Sen. Scott Beck, and Sen. Brian Collamore. Baruth chairs the committee, with Ram Hinsdale serving as vice chair. Beck and Collamore are the Republican members.

In short, the Senate President Pro Tem wrote the bill, sought expedited treatment after the normal deadline had passed, and received that treatment from the Senate Rules Committee he chairs, with fellow Democrats providing the votes needed to move it forward.

A statewide ban, not a Burlington-only measure

The bill follows years of debate over whether Burlington should be allowed to ban guns in bars through a city charter change. That local proposal had stalled, and Gov. Phil Scott had opposed allowing one municipality to adopt its own firearms restrictions while no similar statewide rule existed. Baruth’s new approach would remove the local-patchwork issue by imposing the restriction statewide.

Seven Days reported that Baruth and Senate Democrats were pressing House lawmakers to support the statewide bill, which would apply to bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Baruth argued that the policy is not a uniquely liberal idea and noted that other states have restrictions on firearms in bars.

But the language in S.329 is broader than a ban on carrying while intoxicated. It does not turn on whether the gun owner has consumed alcohol. It turns on whether the premises is licensed to serve alcohol. That means the proposed criminal offense would reach sober, lawful gun owners entering covered restaurants or bars, unless one of the bill’s exceptions applies.

The bill includes carveouts for law enforcement, military personnel acting under orders, certain government officers or employees, and the license holder for the premises, provided that person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. It also excludes certain types of licensed or permitted premises, including some event permits and public sidewalks or highways passing through outside-consumption areas.

Supreme Court precedent creates a legal problem

The constitutional question is whether Vermont can treat all alcohol-serving premises as places where the government may broadly prohibit firearms.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the Second Amendment’s text covers a person’s conduct, the government must justify a firearm regulation by showing that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court recognized that governments may restrict firearms in certain “sensitive places,” such as schools and government buildings, but warned against treating broad categories of ordinary public life as off-limits to firearms simply by labeling them sensitive places.

That distinction matters for S.329. A courthouse or school is one thing. A privately owned restaurant that serves beer with dinner is another. Vermont would likely have to show a historical tradition supporting bans on firearms in taverns, inns, restaurants, or similar public establishments — not merely a modern policy preference that guns and alcohol are a dangerous mix.

The Supreme Court’s later decision in United States v. Rahimi upheld temporary disarmament of individuals found by a court to pose a credible threat to another person’s physical safety. But that case involved an individualized judicial finding of dangerousness. S.329’s alcohol-premises ban is categorical. It applies based on location, not on whether the individual has threatened anyone, is intoxicated, or is otherwise disqualified from possessing a firearm.

Modern incidents complicate the policy argument

Supporters of the bill argue that firearms do not belong in places where people drink. But modern incidents show that armed civilians have, in some cases, stopped shootings at or inside restaurants before police could intervene.

In 2018, a gunman opened fire at Louie’s Grill & Bar in Oklahoma City, injuring a woman and her 12-year-old daughter. CBS News reported that an armed civilian confronted and shot the attacker outside the restaurant.

In 2023, Phoenix police said a man entered a restaurant near 27th Avenue and Camelback Road and fired several rounds. A man inside the restaurant shot the attacker, who later died. Local reporting said witnesses supported the armed patron’s self-defense account.

Those cases do not prove that every armed citizen will respond effectively. But they undercut the premise that lawful armed civilians have no public-safety role in restaurants or similar venues.

Defensive-gun-use study cited in national debate

The Crime Prevention Research Center recently released a report titled “A Deep Dive into Cases Where Civilians Stopped Active Shooters…” examining active-shooter cases from 2014 through 2023. The report claims that civilians with concealed handgun permits stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings in non-gun-free zones, compared with 44.6 percent stopped by police. It also reported low rates of permit holders accidentally shooting bystanders or interfering with police.

The report comes from a pro-gun research organization, so its conclusions are likely to be challenged by gun-control advocates. Still, its central claim is directly relevant to S.329: if a location is made legally gun-free, lawful defensive carry is removed from the scene by statute.

That is the unresolved policy tradeoff in Baruth’s proposal. Vermont lawmakers are not merely targeting people who carry while drunk. They are proposing a statewide criminal ban on firearm possession in a broad category of public-facing businesses, including restaurants and bars, where modern shootings have occurred and where armed civilians have sometimes stopped attackers before police arrived.