The Burlington City Council covered a lot of ground in its meeting last night. It passed a second round of amendments to the city’s livable wage ordinance, approved a purchase power agreement related to the possible installation of solar panels off Sunset Cliff Road, and heard from members of the public once again about the basing of F-35s in Vermont.
But the items that generated the most public interest throughout the evening were four resolutions related to gun control, which had been proposed by the council’s charter-change committee and that came to vote by night’s end. The council passed three of the four.
The three successful resolutions will ban firearms in any business with a liquor license; require gun owners to store their weapons in locked containers; and allow police to seize firearms when domestic abuse is suspected. But by a 10-4 vote, the council struck down a measure that would have required individuals concealing firearms to carry a permit.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
24 V.S.A. § 2295. Authority of municipal and county governments to regulate firearms, ammunition, hunting, fishing and trapping
Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city or incorporated village, by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate hunting, fishing and trapping or the possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or registration of traps, firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition. This section shall not limit the powers conferred upon a town, city or incorporated village under section 2291(8) of this title. The provisions of this section shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of a municipal charter. (Added 1987, No. 178 (Adj. Sess.), eff. May 9, 1988.)
Then I guess you don’t want the patronage from non-citizens of your fair city either. 🙂 No problem from the law-abiding folk. Good luck with the drug runners from the Bronx.
The quote didn’t say “if”, it said “did” indicating he knew the outcome of the vote before the meeting.
Unless the press release said he’d sign three of the proposed measures if they passed, but didn’t mention the one that he didn’t want to sign / didn’t think would pass. Wouldn’t it be helpful if Seven Days said that instead? OH WAIT that’s exactly what they did say 😉
I’d like to know how many non-Burlingtonians spoke up last night. The last thing we need is for undue influence from non-citizens of our fair city.
Of course it did, but from the local level, up though state and to the federal level, do any of them listen to their constituents? NO, time to flush the toilet and get new blood in to ALL levels of government, then term limits, so the toilet gets flushed often.
“Flatlanders” are free to move in and change the laws as they see fit. Show us where in the Constitution it says this is illegal. God bless America!
A blatant disregard for the voice of their constituents. Public opposition far outnumbered supporters in attendance.
Why have a public hearing then? The liberals had their minds made up WAY before the meeting, and they wonder why REAL Native Vermonters do not like flatlanders moving to the state?. If you like Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut style gun control, then STAY THERE, we do not want or need this in Vermont.
“In a press release shortly BEFORE the meeting, Mayor Miro Weinberger announced he would sign the three measures that did pass..” Sounds like minds were made up long before the meeting. How interesting. Did they have a private meeting before the public meeting? I thought that was illegal. Or did enough money/favors change hands to ensure the outcome before the incoming attendees to the meeting were able to speak?