Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger brought new ammunition to the fight over gun control Thursday, as he urged state legislators to let Vermont’s largest city ban guns in bars and make other firearms restrictions.
Two years after Burlington residents voted for three gun-control measures — and a year after state lawmakers dismissed the charter changes as unconstitutional — Mayor Miro Weinberger tried to make the case to legislators that there’s nothing outlandish about what the city wants to do. He argued that the three gun-control measures the voters approved are legal, doable and accepted elsewhere.
“I think we made a stronger case this year,” Weinberger said after speaking at the Statehouse. “I sense it’s being treated differently.”
Earlier, Weinberger told the House Government Operations Committee, as about a dozen gun-rights activists waited to counter his arguments: “Gun safety is not an area where Burlington is trying to chart some new path. Today, we are trying to catch up with laws in Texas, Montana, and Alaska.”
Sixteen states ban firearms in bars and restaurants, according to information Burlington city attorney Eileen Blackwood supplied the committee.
Along with banning guns in bars, city voters in 2014 approved measures to require city residents to lock up guns in their homes and to allow police to seize guns in cases of domestic violence. Burlington voters’ wishes are irrelevant, however, unless the legislature approves the changes to the city’s charter.
Weinberger sought to counter arguments made last year that the proposed charter changes violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms and a state law that prohibits municipalities from restricting guns. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some restrictions on all constitutional rights, Weinberger said. And lawmakers routinely make new state laws that alter old state laws, he noted. Despite the renewed arguments, persuading lawmakers to allow the city to restrict guns remains no easy task.
“Who’s going to pay for the lawsuit?” committee chair Donna Sweaney (D-Windsor) said, after a morning full of testimony. Many believe a court challenge is inevitable if the changes are approved. If the legislature endorses those changes, Sweaney wonders whether the state would have to pay to defend the laws.
She said she has also other concerns and expects her committee to continue discussing the issue next week, before deciding what to do.
Rep. Ron Hubert (R-Milton), a committee member, was more openly hostile to the changes. As legislative lawyer Erik Fitzpatrick explained the proposals, Hubert asked if the gun ban would apply to a person checking into a hotel that has a bar. Yes, Fitzpatrick said.
“So it’s not an anti-drinking bill, it’s an anti-gun bill,” Hubert declared.
After making his pitch the committee, Weinberger met privately with House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown). Smith has been clear that he sees legal problems with the charter changes and a lack of interest among his members to push the issue.
After hearing Weinberger’s new arguments, Smith said simply, “My view remains the same.”
For Weinberger, a Democrat whom many believe aspires to higher office, pursuing gun control in Vermont could be a political gamble. Smith, Gov. Peter Shumlin and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are among those in a long line Vermont politicians who, loathe to rile gun-rights activists, have walked a careful line on gun control.
As he stood in the Statehouse hallway after testifying, Weinberger made it clear he has given that concern some thought, but he contended the tenor of opinion has changed. “I think there’s been a broad cultural shift in this country and to some degree in Vermont,” Weinberger said. “Am I doomed? I don’t see the numbers in that.”
Back in the committee hearing, gun-rights activists lined up to speak against the charter changes. A short time later, as Sweaney ate lunch, a phone message sat on top of a pile of papers from a woman urging her to defeat the Burlington charter changes.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
It is simple to understand problem. The bad guys don’t & won’t listen to or follow the law. This just makes it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend themselves & their families. Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution was written for a very good reason: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.” Nothing has changed since 1777 when the Vermont Constitution was written. There are some real threats to safety out there, many of them in Burlington, & they don’t obey laws or wait for the police to arrive.
If the charter changes were unconstitutional last year, they are still unconstitutional this year. What they’re trying to do is throw enough shit at the wall in the hopes that something will stick
To understand how onerous and offensive these suggested laws are, simply change one word. Replace “gun” with “Islam”. Some right wing municipality could restrict Islam using the same arguments as Burlington does, ‘No one is saying you can’t own a burka/hijab (gun), you simply cannot bring it into public places where it might scare people. Furthermore, no one is saying Muslims can’t own fertilizer (citizens own guns), we simply require it be low capacity amounts, be registered, and be kept locked up.’
If you want real gun control, how about the mandatory maximum for anyone caught committing a violent felony (rape, robbery, burglary, home invasion, aggravated assault) while in immediate possession of a firearm? You could possibly even add drug dealing to the list. Then the gang banger drug dealers on Church street might not exist.
If these unconstitutional charters changes are passed I will never set foot in Burlington again and I daresay there are many others that think the same way.
If the man really feels a need to control things, why don’t he try making efforts to help control the opiate and heroine problem in his city instead of a non existent problem where he can help people instead of harm them by not allowing them to protect themselves. It might also be good for him to note the last time we knew, Burlington was a part of Vermont, not the other way around !
You know it’s very sad that the police chief of Burlington Vermont, Brandon del Pozo is in favor of changing the gun laws in the state of Vermont.
He stated he wanted to take on opiate addiction in the state of which would be a great job done if he stuck to his word.
His wife said about Vermont, ” it has the kind of values and outdoor man spirit that he loves.”
He is absolutely right this is the perfect place with wonderful gun owners and the SAFEST STATE IN THE NATION.
During that process I find it odd that he never mentioned Vermont had any type of gun problem.
I guess he never took the time to find out that we are people who take very seriously our right to carry guns in the state of Vermont and we prove that consistently by being the safest state in the nation.
“If these unconstitutional charters changes are passed I will never set foot in Burlington again and I daresay there are many others that think the same way.”
You don’t have to add incentives. I’m sure the charter changes will pass.
The charter changes themselves were drafted poorly. I am for gun control but voted against this because they were drafted in a way that was horribly over inclusive and could not reasonably go anywhere in the Legislature or Judiciary. I don’t know why Burlington wouldn’t put the effort into re-drafting and re-voting for something more practical rather than wasting everyone’s time and money a second time on what could only be now seen as statement making political maneuvering.
The city of Burlington should bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the sportsmen bill of rights.
How is it possible for a special interest group such as the sportsmen to enact their own state statute restricting anyone else from regulating this special interest group’s behavior.
We don’t make laws for each interest group in Vermont against all the other Vermont citizens.
This “sportsmen bill of rights” is Unconstitutional.
“A well regulated militia….” If you’re going to support the 2nd Amendment, you can’t cherry pick the words.
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.
Tiki, I suggest you research what the Founders meant when they used the term “select militia”. If you cannot be bothered, let me point out that people such as John Adams, and the author of the “Federal Farmer” letters (see the Anti-Federalist Papers) pointed out that a select militia, in which only every 6th or 8th person served in the militia, would be a tyranny waiting to happen.
The Founders, including the man who drafted the Second Amendment (Madison), believed the militia was “the body of the people”.
This was a militia that ignored their rightful leaders (colonial governors) and threw out their commissioned officers (appointed by the Crown), in orders to act in violation of the law. This part occurred in 1775, a year BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was made, all while we were still British colonies. THAT is the factual history of the militia you mention.
In fact, the Second Amendment says that such a militia (of the totality of the citizenry, willing to defend the natural rights of man) is “necessary”, not ‘suggested’ or ‘optional’ or ‘a good idea’; but “necessary”.
As such, it would appear that the state legislatures are being derelict in their required duty, we should probably sue.
Let’s see, heroin deaths in vt 2015 – 98,
Gun deaths in vt 2015 – 4. Dip shit democrats want to take away your guns.
That’s comical…
Why can’t we force the the city councilors, the Mayor of Burlington, and all of our State Representatives read to one more time exactly the simple wording of “Our” Vermont Constitution, at least the pertaining parts because it might be too hard for the college educated ones as it was written for the common people to be easily understood.
http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/co…
Start with Chapter 1. A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS
OF THE STATE OF VERMONT, Article 1, Article 16 then check out the violations of
Chapter II, PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT
DELEGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS § 16. [REPRESENTATIVES’ OATHS]
See the parts in here that you think might apply.
Now, after reading this, you also go online at:
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CityCouncil/A…
and search the minutes for meetings and voting information you will see how we have violated. City attorney Blackwood testified Thursday (1/28/15) prior to mine that all (3) bills are “Substantially changed” from what was passed by the votes and presented to the House in 2014.
So how can they legally proceed with this now with a revote? (Oh, they have about 600+ pages still sealed you can’t get even under FOIA that apply to this but go to http://www.gunownersofvermont.org/wordpres… for those details.)
As A resident of Burlington who fought from day one against these illegal ordinances that were improperly communicated and misrepresented to Burlington Voters, I will be one of the first to look at any and all legal remedies against all participants who gave injury against my rights and liberties.