Vermont – founded by a militia – just banned militias

by Steve MacDonald, GraniteGrok

The history of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys has some odd turns, but the result was Vermont. It is a state that exists because of a militia that just banned militias.

Related: Slippery Meet Slope: Vermont Dems Pass Yet Another Gun-Grabbin’ Bill

Vermont on Monday made it a crime to own or operate paramilitary training camps in the state after Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed legislation introduced in response to a firearms training facility built without permits that neighbors called a menace.

Violators face up to five years in prison or a fine up to $50,000 or both, according to the law. It prohibits a person from teaching, training, or demonstrating to anyone else the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death that will be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder. It also bans a person from assembling with others for such training, instruction or practice.

According to the report, the law does not prohibit,

  • Legitimate law enforcement activity
  • Lawful activity … where military science is taught.
  • Self-defense instruction or practice without the intent of causing a civil disorder.
  • Firearms instruction is intended to teach the safe handling and use of firearms.
  • Lawful sports or activities like hunting, target shooting, and firearms collection.

In other words, Vermont Democrats have created an incrementalist loophole in the law for redefining legal activity regarding firearms training.

To be clear, we accept that there are or may be individuals or groups who gather and train to do what Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys did beginning in 1770. A “militia organized to defend the property rights of local residents…”

They are also credited with stopping,

“… sheriffs from enforcing New York laws and terrorized settlers who had New York grants, burning buildings, stealing cattle, and administering occasional floggings with birch rods.

We are not condoning civil war or paramilitary interventions, but you can’t escape the irony. Given the current decline in rights, New York has clearly won control over the “land grants,” and modern Vermont Democrats mean to ensure things stay that way (politically), no matter how despotic their designs on power.

Make no mistake. This law will develop a case of mission creep in successive legislatures as progressive gun grabbers in Montpellier find new and exciting definitions for “legal activity” and “civil disorder.”

You can count on it.

And one more bit of irony. If ever the state has a need to contain or suppress an alleged militia, they can call on the Vermont Air National Guard for support – nicknamed ‘The Green Mountain Boys.’

Categories: Commentary

24 replies »

  1. I would think this bit of gun control will be very hard to define, much less enforce considering that it attempts to ban “a well regulated militia” which is clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution as “necessary for the security of a free state”.


      • Ever turn off your fake news channels and turn on TV that reports FACTS as evidenced by videography? It IS here. Good luck, fella – may the “force” be with you.

  3. “…used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder.” Say what ? WTH does this mean ? More direct, does this include defense of our country ?

  4. The entire legislature is causing civil disorder – passing blatantly unconstitutional laws – the US Constitution itself specifically addresses militias, what they are & what they are used for. This bill may be even more nefarious than what it even appears to be.

  5. Again, “Mr. Constitutionality” Phil Scott signs the legislation. Dear God please let me live long enough that when the next civil war that these Communists are starting comes to fruition I can sit back and watch them get their comeuppance.

  6. What if the malitia is made up of drag queens, BIPOC members, and alphabet acronym groups? Apparently, that is what they support and encourage – the Nashville manifesto is being hidden for a reason. Nay. The day the “new arrivals” make their way into our cities and towns is the day all their lawfare becomes null and void. The New York City plan put out by Mayor Adams will ensure free bus trips to Vermont as the sanctuary cities are about to reap what they sowed. Get ready – it’s not a joke – seeing what is happening in El Paso will be here.

  7. As usual, total disregard of the Second Amendment. This is clearly Unconstitutional and wouldn’t stand if the VT AG took it to court. Several states have already done this, and all have been successful. But we all know Charity Clark won’t do a gosh-darn thing, don’t we.

  8. From the web site Bearing Arms by Glyon Oct. 5th 2013


    The Supreme Court in the Heller decision explained that the second amendment guarantees an individual right of the people to keep and carry arms for their defense in the event of a confrontation. The anti-gun crowd, however, refuses to accept this common sense reading of the amendment. The best way to interpret the Constitution begins with actually reading it.  The next best thing is to read what the Constitution’s chief drafter, James Madison, had to say about America’s founding document.  Madison was the chief author of the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.  The Federalist Papers offer great insight into the political theories of the day that led to our system of government.

    Students of the second amendment should be familiar with both Federalist 29 and 46, which discuss the role of an armed populace in protecting the precious freedom which had so recently been won.  It was that thinking that led to the adoption of the second amendment.

    Madison was also the original drafter of the Bill of Rights, including what would become the second amendment. The anti-gun crowd regularly accuse second amendment supporters of only focusing on what Justice Scalia called the operative clause of the second amendment, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  They assert that we ignore the prefatory clause that reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”  To them the prefatory clause confirms that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the right of the states to have militias or as they sometimes phrase it, the right to bear arms when in militia service.

    However, beyond that, they never exactly explain what is meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The anti-gun crowd cling to the so-called collective rights view of the amendment that held sway with a number of federal circuit courts pre-Heller.  However, beyond denying an individual right to keep and bear arms, those courts said precious little on exactly what the amendment actually protected.

    It was commonly stated outside the court room that the operative clause meant that the federal government could not disarm the state militias.  But that is not what the amendment says and no federal circuit court actually provided any reasoned discussion supporting such an interpretation.  In any event, if that were what the amendment was meant to accomplish, one would think the amendment would have been written in some way like “A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, Congress shall not infringe the right of the states to arm the militia.” However, this interpretation of the amendment would have worked a radical transformation of Congress’s power over the militia.  The Constitution addresses the militia in Article I, Section 8.  It states “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

    Thus, it was Congress’s responsibility, not the states, to organize and arm the militia, with the states having only the responsibility to appoint officers and train the militia as Congress mandates.   The militia is not treated by the Constitution as a creature of the several states, but of the nation as a whole to be organized, armed and disciplined by Congress, while being trained by the states as Congress directs.
    Congress has in fact exercised this authority.
    Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 311 defines the militia of the United States with certain exceptions as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and … female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”  The National Guard is the organized militia and the unorganized militia consists of those militia members not in the Guard.  In the Second Militia Act, passed in 1792, Congress specified the arms militia members were to have.  It was incumbent on militia members to report for training and duty with their own arms. The second amendment did not change Congress’s authority over the militia, nor was that the intent of the amendment.  Most notably, the second amendment did not provide that the states would or could arm the militia.  If that were the meaning of the second amendment, then states could be free to arm the militia in any way they saw fit.  States could for instance under the collective rights view of the second amendment, authorize each member of the unorganized militia to own a fully automatic weapon such as the M-16.  That would raise issues with respect to the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which greatly restricts the ownership and transfer of automatic weapons.  States could also abrogate many other federal firearm restrictions. It is certainly the case that some founders, such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, feared that Congress would neglect its responsibility to arm the militia.  And so, it is not an unreasonable view that a primary purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking guns away from the people who constituted the militia.

  9. It is unclear if you can be prosecuted under this law if you invite some friends over for target shooting, and…the wrong things get discussed. On the other hand, you can invite your drag queen, transgender friends over and talk about how you would like to spread your “message of love” in the local schools and libraries and you may get an invite to the statehouse to give the morning “devotional”. We voted for this.

    • I have already decided when I have a shooting session on my property to have a duty drag queen, and transgender person in attendance to shield me from the law.

  10. Maybe I misunderstand the dichotomy between the Attorney General, and the Defender General, but Defender General Matt Valerio has come out as stating that he believes that a lot of the gun control legislation that has hit the fan lately is of questionable constitutional legality. Meanwhile the Attorney General’s Office has pushed every piece of 2nd Amendment gun control that the left can dream up. And I thought that the Attorney General’s Office was supposed to represent the interests and rights of the people. Stupid me ! Matt Valerio for A.G !

  11. This isn’t my great grandfather’s, my grandfather’s, my father’s or my state anymore. Sad we’ve become a socialist feeding ground.

    • And people in CA, NY, IL, RI, MA, MN & CT are saying the same thing.

  12. It is sad that so many people have so little knowledge of American or Vermont history. It is sadder, however, when someone deliberately misrepresents historical events for their own political purpose. I’m not sure to which category Mr. Macdonald belongs. Either way, to attempt to link the Green Mountain Boys to the right to operate a paramilitary group in this day and age is totally off base.

    The Green Mountain Boys were founded in 1770 at a time when the “Grants” had no political structure whatsoever. They were disbanded in 1776, a year before Vermont adopted its Constitution as an independent republic and fifteen years before Vermont became a state.

    For the record: In an earlier post, Ms. Gaffney attacked me as follows: “BTW, pretty sure “John” sounds like he’s a Middlebury or UVM student on here to gain some suck-up extra credit from a leftist assistant professor by demonstrating how proficient he is at leftist blabbering points. I am a Vietnam veteran who supports, with reasonable limitations, gun ownership for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, or merely for the joy of collecting

    • Its not about hunting, self defense, target shooting or collection. Its about detering tyranny and it can be done simply through a well armed civilian population, without firing a shot, yet capable of firing many.

  13. I am so tired of being told Vermont got what we asked for.
    I didn’t ask to be forced to vote from home.
    I didn’t ask for the Commies.
    I didn’t ask for the Commies to make it ILLEGAL TO VOTE by my own hand.
    Am I the only one who understands that Vermont can only vote with the election stealing Dominion machines????
    Am I the only one who understands Vermont was stolen a long long time ago?

  14. Sometimes you can’t tell people, you have to show them.
    The left is guaranteed to be routed out of the Vt. Legislature.
    Good job by stupid.

    • That’s true, and no doubt eventually the legislature will change, but how long will it take? As we see countless times throughout world history, whether it’s called democracy, socialism, communism or fascism, etc., they all lead to economic destruction, loss of freedom and genocide. Notice how rare it is you hear a politician (and never MSM news) refer to the US as a constitutional republic.

      The programs they vote for always take money from producers-workers-taxpayers and give it to another class of victims that they champion with no timelines or conditions for improvement. I’m all for private charity, but use your own money for your own particular cause. I do not insist others be taxed for my causes, and I prefer to see results, a return on investment where problems are resolved, instead of an endless snowball of entitlements and debt.

      Hell is paved with good intentions…so to hell with results, they say; just give us more money and we’ll get it right next time, etc. Therein lies the real purpose…it’s easy to control those who are incapable of taking care of themselves.

      There is no shame in accepting help but there is in refusing to make an effort to overcome the need after a certain amount of time. All I see now is an endless parade of arrogant entitlement whores demanding the fruit of someone else’s labor by threat of government force. They used to call that slavery. Now they dress it up as compassion. Can we stop the decline?

  15. This legislative body is a clear and present danger to your existence, they are your enemy. Treat them as the enemy they are