by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com

In recent years, Vermont’s Supreme Court made headlines with a controversial decision allowing non-citizens to vote in municipal elections, sparking legal challenges and heated public debate. This decision hinged on the interpretation that Vermont’s Constitution, while requiring U.S. citizenship for voting, is silent on which elections require citizenship—such as local elections in this case—thereby granting municipalities like Burlington the flexibility to extend voting rights. This selective interpretation invites an important question: if constitutional silence is grounds for exceptions, how does this logic apply to Vermont’s other rights—specifically, Article 16, which guarantees the right to bear arms?

Vermont’s Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution states clearly, “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Unlike other state constitutions, Article 16 does not impose qualifications or exceptions on this right. For many Vermonters, the language implies a fundamental right to firearm ownership without restrictions. Yet, Vermont has instituted many restrictions, including age limits, prohibitions on certain firearms, large-capacity magazine bans, restrictions on ghost guns, waiting periods, prohibited locations, and bans on ownership for certain individuals. These measures appear to contradict the constitution’s broad language.

The Logic of Non-Citizen Voting

In its ruling, Vermont’s Supreme Court justified non-citizen voting by noting the constitution does not explicitly prohibit it in local elections. At the time, Vermont’s Democrat, former Super-Majority Legislature approved charter changes allowing Burlington, Winooski, and Montpelier to include non-citizens in city council and school board voting. Opponents argue this defies the intent of Vermont’s Constitution, which broadly requires U.S. citizenship for voting. In Burlington’s case, however, the court leaned on the absence of specific language about local elections to justify its decision, which is currently facing a legal challenge.

By interpreting constitutional silence as permissive, the court set an unusual precedent: one where local voting rights for non-citizens were allowed based on what was not explicitly prohibited. If this logic holds, then the explicit language in Article 16, which guarantees an unrestricted right to bear arms, should logically support an even stronger argument against any firearm restrictions.

Applying This Logic to Gun Rights

Following the court’s approach, Article 16’s plain language should preclude any state-imposed restrictions on firearm ownership. If constitutional silence justifies non-citizen voting in local matters, then the constitution’s clear language on gun rights should similarly allow unrestricted firearm ownership across the state. Vermont’s existing restrictions—including those on age, types of firearms, and prohibited locations—could be viewed as overreach inconsistent with Article 16’s guarantee.

A Cohesive Argument for Gun Rights

The court’s decision on non-citizen voting sets a precedent for interpreting the constitution’s broad language as sufficient to support unrestricted rights. By expanding some rights while restricting others, the Vermont Supreme Court risks turning the state constitution into a shopping list, something to pick and choose from based on preference rather than logic, reasoning, and principle. This undermines the constitution’s authority and renders its protections arbitrary, eroding its value as a cohesive document meant to guard all citizens’ rights impartially.

Just as the absence of a prohibition on non-citizen voting created a pathway for Burlington, Winooski, and Montpelier’s decisions, Article 16’s plain language should prevent any state-level restrictions on gun ownership for Vermont residents.

Judicial Consistency: Upholding Vermont’s Constitutional Rights

Consistency is key for credible judicial interpretation. The court’s decision on non-citizen voting illustrates a selective reading that leans on silence as permissive, yet the state’s restrictions on firearm rights reveal a restrictive application. Vermont’s judiciary should apply a coherent standard, acknowledging that Article 16’s language logically permits unrestricted firearm ownership as intended.

By applying consistent reasoning, Vermont’s Supreme Court could redefine the state’s approach to gun rights, aligning it more closely with constitutional language. This consistency would not only restore Vermonters’ right to bear arms as intended but would enhance the legitimacy of judicial interpretation.

In conclusion, Vermont’s Supreme Court has opened a pathway to challenge restrictive gun laws by interpreting constitutional silence as permissive for local voting. Applying the same logic to Article 16 should reinforce a more expansive interpretation of the right to bear arms, ensuring that Vermont’s constitutional protections remain coherent and consistent across all rights. Perhaps the best solution would be to stop using the Constitution as a malleable magic-8 ball or ouija board and simply follow the plain language as it is written.