Vermont's Independent Voice
Browse News
Browse Arts + Culture
Browse Food + Drink
Browse Cannabis
Browse Music
Browse On Screen
Browse Events
Browse Classifieds
Browse Personals
Mike Fitzgerald Smith
Member since Jun 8, 2014
Recent Comments
Re: “Burlington Says Gun Control Is Not Outlandish”
Tiki, The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Not "regulatory" as in the modern definition which is highlighted in several SCOTUS decisions. Definitions do change over time but the intent should not.
While we "cherry pick", since this is a state issue, and not Federal, lets look at Vermont's Constitution,..."Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.""
As SCOVT has ruled and why we have no concealed carry laws, and nationally referred to as "Vermont Carry", the Justices emphasized on the term ".. defense of themselves .." in reference to the individual citizen of Vermont.
Steph, The SCOVT has already ruled on this before. 1903 Rutland V. Rosenthal where Rutland had a concealed weapon law and SCOVT unanimously ruled that the City has NO POWER to enact nor control firearms.
Steph says, "We don't make laws for each interest group in Vermont against all the other Vermont citizens." If this was true, then what is Marriage Equality? Equal voting? Laws that protect from any form of discrimination?
FYI Steph, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy and as such we follow laws and the state Constitution and as such protect the "interest group". Majority does not rule the minority.
I was at the statehouse and the legislative counsels( the state lawyers) said that the charter changes were unconstitutional( went against VERMONT's Constitution). "The Sportsmans Bill of Rights" has nothing to do with the majority issue except on rule making and reinforcing a SCOVT decision.
Posted by
Mike Fitzgerald Smith
on 01/29/2016 at 4:41 PM
Re: “Gun Shy: Vermont Pols United on Abortion, Divided on Firearms”
FYI Rama.
If your point of requiring insurance for gun owners is to cover criminal actions then don't hold your breath. Insurance companies don't payout on intentional criminal acts by the carrier. Unintentional acts though are covered by most home owners/renters policies.
Why do you think insurance companies were supporting this myth? They would never payoff, making them millions. I wall street has made enough.
Posted by
Mike Fitzgerald Smith
on 12/03/2015 at 7:34 AM
Re: “Vermont Animal-Rights Activists Aim to Keep Pets Safe From Traps”
Domesticated cats and dogs do more harm to wildlife.
http://www.nature.com/.../journal/v4/n1/fu…
http://www.livescience.com/27330-dogs-disr…
As an avid bird watcher, I spend a lot of time in the woods but I also found out that hunters, trappers and fisherman(HTF) do more to conserve wildlife than your average wildlife activists. HTF's contribute via a 11% excise tax collected on their equipment that must go to wildlife conservation fund known as Pittman-Robertson or the Wildlife Restoration Act.
Though I do not hunt ducks but enjoy photographing them, I am a member of Ducks Unlimited, rated #3 in the country 4 consumer groups including Consumer Reports that 92%! of their proceeds goes directly to the conservation of land and habitat for wildlife. The Humane Society of the US was rated 879 by CR which put it in among scam groups with only less than 15%.
Sorry, I will side with F&W.
Mr. Goodman, I will "Call you out" on your libel accusations to Mr. Covey. Considering Police do not handle "trapping and hunting" violations, they automatically default to F&W Wardens but if you do have a "police report" please, present it. Else your accusation only diminishes your argument against trapping thus supporting Mr Covey.
Posted by
Mike Fitzgerald Smith
on 10/25/2015 at 2:02 PM
Re: “Will Sanders' Gun Record Haunt Him in the Democratic Primary?”
"...evolving position on gun laws mirrors that of his Vermont constituents, who used to vociferously oppose gun control..."
Really Paul?
Wow! That is a great leap of journalistic, I mean creative thinking on that. If you are refering to what was passed at the state house, I would be embarrassed to even try to make that connection. The bill they passed was as thin as toilet paper. Really, taking a Federal FELONY and making it a MISDEMEANOR at the state level?! LMAO!
Has it really changed or is that your "opinion"?
My "opinion" says it has not changed, but swung the other way.
Example, 8 decade old ban on firearm suppressors( "silencers") goes "bye-bye" July 2nd.
Bernie has more important issues to contend with like our economy and union jobs!
He is too smart for mucky around in media fluff.
Posted by
Mike Fitzgerald Smith
on 06/19/2015 at 8:07 AM
Re: “Scoreboard: Winners and Losers of the 2015 Legislative Session”
Holy Nerf Balls Batman!
Terri! Paul! What a softball piece! GSVT a TIE?! ROLMAO! Wow! Been bought much?
Terri, remember this little piece you wrote for your previous employer?
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/n…
Well?
Where is their Universal Background Checks? That was their "FOCUS for 2015." That part hit the trash can quicker than a 2 week old tuna salad sandwich.
GSVT got nothing but a bill that made a Federal Felony, a MISDEMEANOR here in the state and mental health law that will probably, and I am being liberal, maybe generate 12 prohibited people in 10 years!
You two did read the Secretary of State Reports on spending? GSVT and Everytown has spent combined over $275,000 well the pro gun side has spent, maybe $30,000. Great return on their investment!
Come on?!
and theeennn the gun owners end the session with lifting an eight plus decade old ban on suppressors.
Who really won or tied?
Posted by
Mike Fitzgerald Smith
on 05/20/2015 at 2:52 PM
Re: “Long Shot: A Mother of Two Keeps the Gun Debate Alive”
Gun Sense VT is a grass roots organization? If so, why are you paid Ann? Why do you have paid employees?
The Gun Owners of Vermont and Vermont Federation of Sportsmans Clubs are all volunteers including their lobbyists which are not paid, Eddie, Chris, Evan and Clint. I think they are Grass roots. I know Tim and he did accept compensation but no where near the $78,000 you(Ann) paid Adam.
Gunsense spent close to over, in my estimate, $130K not including salaries and your opposition only spent $17000 according to the Vermont Secretary of State Office. I know we will all learn more on what you spent in a couple days.
After reading the remnants of S31 aka S141, I would say Gunsense got their butts kicked by a real Grass roots organization. That bill got gutted like a perch at a fish fry.
If I were GunSense, I would not be celebrating. Nor would I if I donated to Ann. As an experienced lobbyist, I would be looking for a new lobbyist or a new cause because you lost big time at a High cost!
Gunsense is nothing but astroturf and an epic fail.
Posted by
Mike Fitzgerald Smith
on 04/22/2015 at 8:39 PM
Re: “Up to Here in Deer: As Fewer Vermonters Hunt, the Growing Herd Is Becoming a Problem”
Mr. Haas,
Using what Mr Scott said as an excuse for not having non-consumptive board members is weak. Though you and the VWC ( which you are a member) ,POW and the VCCC have pissed off members of non-hunting groups such as the Sierra Club, VNRC, LCI and the Audubon Society (which I am a member) might be the problem.
These 4 groups have had members on the board and do have influence on who does and does Not get appointments.
Maybe you should blame yourselves for it. Try working with FWD .
It's a rather novel idea.