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!
“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?
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.
A blatant disregard for the voice of their constituents. Public opposition far outnumbered supporters in attendance.
“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!
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.
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.
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 😉
The quote didn’t say “if”, it said “did” indicating he knew the outcome of the vote before the meeting.
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.
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.)
How many “GunSense” people were from Burlington? After all, if you going to be exclusionary…
if so, I’d tell them to take a hike as well.
I doubt the UVM students and out-of-state/country tourists that form the bulk of patronage will care much about the gun laws.
Burlington isn’t alone in the “drug runners from the Bronx” problem. Both Rutland and St. Albans are havens for illegal drug trafficking. Not quite sure what you’re insinuating there.
My point is that as much as “real vermonters” hate “flatlanders”, new citizens are free to join the democratic process. I wasn’t specifically saying that the constitution allows changes to gun laws. But while we’re at it, what does that 2291(8) mean?
“(8) To regulate or prohibit the use or discharge, but not possession of, firearms within the municipality or specified portions thereof, provided that an ordinance adopted under this subdivision shall be consistent with section 2295 of this title and shall not prohibit, reduce, or limit discharge at any existing sport shooting range, as that term is defined in 10 V.S.A. § 5227.”
Interestingly enough, the concealed carry permit thing seems to pass this test, but not the banning of firearms in bars.
Every meeting, whether it be school board or city council, has an agenda that is mailed to the participants in advance so they may study and make educated decisions on the items up for vote. The meeting is the forum for discussion and final voting. I am a former school board member in another Vermont town.
Native Vermonter here. Ban them all.
Plenty of the gun nuts who spoke weren’t from Burlington, so what’s the diff?
I agree. Interesting. I am by no means a lawyer but I would interpret to mean that one can’t use (discharge) a firearm or brandish one in a threatening manner (which you CAN be arrested for now) but one IS allowed to carry and possess one.
Actually, the 7D report isn’t worded the way you say it is. It is vague, and certainly susceptible of Amy’s interpretation. The best source for indicating the Mayor’s intent, and what he knew and when he knew it, would be the exact language he used in his press release, or an interview with the Mayor. But 7D didn’t do that. Amy’s interpretation may be right, or it may be wrong. On the information provided by 7D in this report, we can’t tell. Certainly, your sarcastic reponse wasn’t warranted, because you aren’t correct about what this article said.
The “ban” is only going to keep law abiding citizens out of your “fair city”. The thugs who don’t care about the laws will find it that much easier to move about without risk. I bought a new stove from Lowe’s last year. It was delivered by two guys from NY (heavy accents). The Hispanic one and I stood around chatting while the black guy set up the stove. I found it quite intriguing when the Hispanic one said “Man, I’d NEVER break into a place in Vermont. Everywhere we go, there are guns” and he nodded to the rifle by the back door. I replied “that’s probably good thinking ’cause I don’t know of a soul around here that doesn’t have at least a few loaded firearms strategically placed around their home or in their car.” As they walked out, I heard the black guy say “I bet no one messes with that b*tch”. I felt more than a little uneasy that these guys seemed to be admittedly casing the places that they delivered goods to but I’m pretty sure that they won’t come back to my house.
Ban all flatlanders? I’m all for it. 🙂
Why is your definition of “law abiding citizen” narrowly defined as “gun owner who is so pissed off about a law that they don’t move into town”?
Your repeated references to “thugs” and “drug runners from the Bronx” aren’t really scaring me. Sure, there are some bad folks out there. But Burlington is no urban gangland, as you seem to be implying.
Yes, it says “did” because by the time this article was written, the reporter knew which items had passed and which didn’t. No tinfoil hat necessary.
Considering the fact that this will affect the whole state you better believe that all Vermonters had both a right and a responsibility to be there. How many of the 10 or 11 GunSense supporters are Burlingtonians?
Magically by the power vested in me by the glorious Internet, I was able to uncover the otherwise secret and hidden press release. As I suspected, it says the mayor supports three of the proposed measures and urges the city council to pass them. It does not predict the future, or refer to a preordained outcome of council voting.
In a vacuum, Amy’s interpretation and mine might be equally valid. In reality, my interpretation was correct and hers was incorrect and an unnecessary leap to a conspiracy theory. Unlike you, I think sarcasm is completely warranted and critically called for when commenters use their own failure of reading comprehension to jump to silly conclusions about illegal backroom deals and bribes. It’s a good thing she couched it as vague possibilities and not an assertion of fact, since that might have been actionable defamation.
The cc permit is close to passing the legal test but even then you would be required to allow open carry. Not sure that is the direction you all want to go. I myself opt to concealed carry for all of your comfort. Out of sight out of mind you know?
2291 (8) says “use or discharge”, not use (discharge) – it means the terms have separate definitions. Caselaw would have to determine the specific intent of “use” in this context, but it could certainly be argued that storage is a component of use and doesn’t restrict rights of possession.
Possession could also be construed to mean ownership, with “carry” being again a component of use and not possession. Any lawyer could make the argument that restrictions on carrying a firearm into a bar do not prevent or restrict ownership of a firearm.
Attendance at a council meeting is not how a representative democracy works. Constituents were heard most clearly when they elected the members of the council, and they will be heard again at the next election. Anyone from anywhere can show up at a hearing and make noise, you don’t get your way for being loud.
So when you say “your fair city” it sounds like you don’t even live here. If you don’t live in Burlington why do you care?
I used “your fair city” in my comment because Verplanck claimed it as such.
The reason I care about the outcome is that the Mayor has stated that he hopes that if he get it passed in Burlington, “then, by God, other Vermont towns might follow suit”.
I didn’t narrowly define a law abiding citizen as a pissed off gun owner but if you want to spin it, then by all means feel free. There are a lot of people who are law abiding gun owners who will refrain from going to Burlington if this flies. If you think that Burlington isn’t seeing an influx of drugs run up from the Bronx and other southern cities, you need to take a good hard look at the recent arrest files. Heroin sells for 5X $ up here what it does down in NYC. You increase drug traffic, you get more addicts. You get more addicts, you increase the crime. You have fewer homes that can defend themselves and you get braver criminals. I’m not making it up. Do the research. Gun control has never reduced crime.
I guess I’m not sure where the “real Vermonters” hate “flatlanders” comes from. One of my best friends moved here from Connecticut because she and her husband love Vermont. They didn’t come here and try to change it. They came here because they loved what it was. The malcontent comes when someone moves here and then wants to change it to exactly what they moved away from. The question is, then why in the hell did you move here if you didn’t like it in the first place?
What makes you so sure all the ideas you hate come solely from out-of-staters? Miro is a native VT’er, so you can’t pin his gun-grabbing tendencies on being a flatlander.
In any event, it’s funny you came to this conclusion. If you truly believe that folks shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of other jurisdictions, shouldn’t you be OK with Burlington doing what its representatives want to do? Save the big anti-gun control crusade when it hits your town, or the statehouse.
You said “The “ban” is only going to keep law abiding citizens out of your “fair city”.” That’s your hyperbole, not mine. Just clarifying your point.
I’m not questioning burlington’s drug problems, just your characterization of the city as being held together only through its lack of gun laws. I walk down north street, and i don’t see folks with AR-15s strapped to their back. In fact, after years of living here the only guns i see on people are police. Guns are not part of our culture,
I fully understand rural towns are different than cities, and the laws should be different. Folks out there can keep their lax laws, and let us cityfolk choose our own path. If Miro heads out to Fairfax to promote a gun ban, I’ll be one of the first calling him out on it.
Good point. If the councillors went too far, we’ll hear about it in election season. Somehow, i don’t think I’ll be seeing a pro-gun challenger to my prog representative next march.
Show me in the constitution where burlington laws supercede other town’s laws, and we’ll pick up this conversation then. Otherwise, I suggest If this issue comes to your town, take it up there. I promise i won’t attend.
So I guess that same logic applies to the F35 haters as well, right?
The problem was the vague writing by the author. The reader of a news article shouldn’t have to go to a different source to try to figure out what the author was saying. Again, your smug sarcasm was not warranted, O Superior One.
Burlington law or charter absolutely does not supersede the constitution but charter changes allowed in one city/town do set president that will be used in others as one of the council members had made clear is their intent. I can get back to you with that name and the comment verbatim if you really require it though the point is mute.
When a city or town attempts to implement laws that are in clear and direct violation of the state or federal law then it does not matter where in the state you come from, it effects you and you have every right as with a responsibility to be there to express your grievance(s).
Here are a few things that you can research.
Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution makes it clear that an individual has the right to possess and bear arms. No restrictions or regulations are spelled out or implied.
State v. Rosenthal and Vermont Statute, Title 24, Chapter 61, Subchapter 11, Section 2295.
Another thing you may want to look into is United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 241.
The 4 proposed charter changes all violate state and or federal law at least to some degree.
Ban guns in bars:
Take a look at what the state defines as a bar. This change will ban guns from establishments that serve alcohol with a state license. i.e. Hotels, restaurants and of course bars or clubs and may even extend to liquor outlets and grocery stores. This will lead to bans on firearms in other public places/businesses but even without looking ahead to that. I myself have carried in actual bars. I don’t drink often and if I do I may have a glass of wine with dinner or maybe a beer with friends. Generally I drink soda when I go out and I am only there for the social experience. I do not get intoxicated while in possession of a firearm. My right to defend myself does not cease at the door. Other states that have tried bans on guns in bars or laws specifically allowing guns in bars by permit holders have all experienced great issue when it comes to defining what is and what is not a bar and then why a bar would be any different than any other public place or how to differentiate between gun and non gun holder. We need to stop creating problems where there are none and start focusing on the actual problems. If we had an epidemic of bar shootings then this ‘may’ be something to at least offer a further look into but there is no epidemic or even a single incident for that matter and this specific change is only posturing for the future. I carried tonight while eating dinner with my daughter at a restaurant. No alcohol consumed so should I just throw our right to self defense out the window because someone else may be drinking?
Concealed carry permit:
I won’t even bother with this one as it was rejected and is clearly a violation of state law. The alternative would be open carry and we all know how well hoplophobes respond to that.
Confiscation from alleged domestic violence suspects “without court order”:
This really does not require explanation. You need look no further than the 4th amendment. To make more of a point though. Have you any idea how many spouses get ticked at their significant other for fear of cheating or that they actually did cheat and then the vindictive spouse files a relief from abuse order against their significant other under persuasion from the police? Do you have any idea how simple it would be to abuse this and can you imagine the chances of the one filling the relief order actually being the abuser and now you have left the abused partner unarmed and defenseless? I have witnessed these scenarios numerous times now and though it has generally worked out that the accused was released from any charge or order, that is not always the case and who knows what could happen to them while they await their court date.
Safe storage:
Again this really doesn’t require explanation beyond the 4th amendment and it undermines the whole point of owning a weapon for self defense. Safe storage laws have been ruled unconstitutional in various states across the nation, why would Burlington be any different? There are a number of issues with this. Poverty for one. You have a person in need of self defense who is required to purchase a state approved safe to store their firearm and another to store their ammunition. They had all they could do to purchase the firearm. They defend themselves with said firearm and now shall they go to jail or be fined because they defended themselves while not being able to afford whatever the state decides to consider appropriate safe storage? What about the 11 year old girl who is still with us today because she had the ability to access her starter rifle and shot one of two intruders? That is one case of many. What about the wife who is home alone? Shall she not be extended the right to defend herself with her husbands weapon because he had to leave it locked up?
If you are serious about wanting to address the issue of ‘violence’ then you need to focus on real factors such as economy, poverty, unemployment, family, and drug and alcohol abuse. We also need to focus on holding our public officials to the law. If we see them violate the law then how can we possibly expect everyday people to follow it?
They won’t care about the hit to their economy until after the fact. Look at Connecticut. They just lost a few billion a year from their economy due to their gun control nonsense. That is bound to hurt.
She didn’t specify ‘all’ law abiding citizens and it should be obvious that she is referring to law abiding gun owners or those who don’t own guns themselves but support the right to. About not seeing guns in Burlington. That is not because they are not there. People in Vermont generally opt for concealed carry so as not to offend hoplophobes and create a scene.
” Guns are not part of our culture,”
I’m going to have to call BS here. It may not be part of YOUR culture but fire arms have a long history in VT and it’s culture. Afterall the Green Mtn Boys didn’t head off to Fort Ticonderoga with sticks in their hands.
Our = Burlington
There aren’t any shooting ranges in town, nor can we hunt in town. Folks around here have a real problem separating local Burlington issues from larger, statewide ones.
It absolutely does.
If they refrain from going to Burlington because they can’t bring firearms into bars, then good riddance. People like that must have fairly few towns they can go to, and certainly no cities anywhere nearby.
So there are no people in Burlington that hunt? There are no people in Burlington that enjoy going to a shooting range? There are no people in Burlington that grew up around guns?
I get it’s difficult to see that the world doesn’t revolve around you and that issues that do not affect you may affect others, but that doesn’t change the reality of it all.
Moreover, the issue isn’t so much about a shooting range or hunting (and your wrong about that, plenty of ducks killed on Champlain around Burlington even though technically the lake is not “in Burlington”) but is more an issue in Burlington of a citizens right to protect themselves if they so choose.
Article 16: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves
This is also why 24 V.S.A. § 2295, as pointed out above, specifically states a city shall not directly regulate “possession” of a gun. Possession does not mean ownership in this case as ownership is mentioned outright. If a city dictates you can not possess your gun, by requiring it to be locked up, you can not defend yourself as protected by Article 16.
Possession can not be construed as ownership. The law states “no town, city or incorporated village, by ordinance, resolution or other
enactment, shall directly regulate…. the
possession, ownership,….”
The two are denoted separately, indicating they are distinct from each other.
You’re right I worded that imprecisely. I still think it’s possible for carry in some circumstances to be a component of use (which still appears to be undefined) rather than either possession or ownership.
I find smug sarcasm as a response to lazy conspiracy theories easily debunked through a Google search to be totally warranted.
Fair enough. Howbout supporting clearer writing?
Typically, for lack of argument, we get name-calling against “liberals” from the faction that is so propagandized that it doesn’t know that the Founders were not extremists; they were liberals-moderates. And were not anti-gov’t/rule of law: we call them Founders becasue they FOUNDED gov’ts.
Nor do they understand that no rights are unlimited. Or that every right is inextricably entwined with responsibility — this fact substantiated by the childish whining whenever anyone “threatens” their “right” to be wholly lawless about guns, which are deadly weapons.
Let’s shift for the moment to law, in view of the constant invocation of “rights” from that faction:
1. In LAW, assault is defined as, “Putting another in fear of bodily harm”.
Because others also have rights.
2. In LAW, to point an UNLOADED gun at another is defined as the CRIME of, “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”.
Because others also have rights.
3. In LAW, as those facts make obvious, if it LOOKS like an assault weapon, it IS an assault weapon — none of which has anything to do with the irrelevant dodge of “trigger mechanisms”.
As for your “We”: who elected you to speak for others? Have you yet to read the US, and VT constitutions, which expressly stipulate that those elected to the gov’t’s law-making body make the laws, not the unelected private citizen, regardless how many of imagine themselves a majority?
That being superseded by the Vermont constitution, in which is stipulated:
Chap. II, S. 40th. The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable times [i.e., hunting is constitutionally subject to regulation], to hunt and fowl . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly.
The statutory section you quote contradicts that clear statement in the Vermont constitution of the authority of the State to implement gun control, which obviously also includes the regulation of hunting.
How do you know they want to change it to what they moved away from if you don’t live where they moved away from so don’t know what they moved away from was like?
Can you not understand that Vermont is no more perfect than anywhere else, therefore is not pleasing in all particulars to anyone in that state? Are you suggesting (1) that Vermont cannot be improved, and (2) that only you and those few who agree with you have the right to determine whether any changes are warranted and made?
Don’t you get tired of sounding like a bully?
The state constitution stipulates that the laws are made by the elective body charged with that authority, not by unelected individuals or factions. The elected body represents all views, not only that of the tough-guy gunners who seem so handy with the unfounded rhetoric and tantrums and whining.
Everyone who disagrees with you does so out of hate? Isn’t that a rather extreme assertion — projection — in view of the fact that there is no evidence to support it other than the accusation itself?
“Exclusionary,” as excluding from one’s considerations the right not to be subjected to intimidation by armed whiners?
Typical: if you asssert your legitimate rights against my asserted “right” to lug loaded guns around sans all regulation, and with no respect for others legitimate rights and sensibilities, I’ll boycott you until you agree to cease asserting your legitimate rights. “It’s in thuh consitution, ya know!”
What is it about gunners that they always resort to poorly-veiled threats whenever their exaggerated sense of entitlement/”rights” is “threatened” with reasonable limitations based upon protection of others’ rights and enforcement of their responsibilities?
Don’t worry your paranoid little head about it: all them there minorities aren’t going to be moving to lily-white Vermont any time soon: they “get” the underlying message.
And isn’t that exactly the same as the gunners intent — that forcing everyone to be armed, at very least to protect themselves against the gunners, in your town would then spread like a plague to other towns?
What bothers you is not only that others have rights, but also that they choose to assert them against your exaggerated sense of entitlement, backed by the threat of increaing the effort to bully and intimidate in order to get your way.
Simple factual slogan: Not only gunners have rights.
“There are a lot of people who are law abiding gun owners who will refrain from going to Burlington if this flies.”
Yet again the tantrum. “If I don’t get my way, I’m gonna hold my breath till my face turns blue. And also I’m not gonna hang around with you anymore, And, too, I’m taking my ball and going home cuz you won’t play exclsuively by my rules.”
“Gun control has never reduced crime.”
Gun control laws do in fact reduce GUN crimes.
The use of such words as “never” refers to an infinite perfection which is not a human reality therefore is an extremist usage.
What you are arguing against is RESPONSIBILITY, based upon the belief that your gun “rights” trump all other rights; and that others had better listen to and buckle under that attitude or else . . . you’ll throw another tantrum.
Not only are you not a “Green Mountain Boy” — “heroic” fantast notwithstanding — but the Founders themselves engaged in every form of gun control, up to and including confiscation and banning. That they did it means it’s Constitutional.
“Article 16: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves”
You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the laws you’ll exploit, and which you’ll reject as “inconvenient”. ALL of Article 16th is in effect at the same time, and continues on from,
“defence [sic] of themselves” with,
“AND the State”.
The article is the militia clause; the militia is a PUBLIC institution; a militia is not an individual, and a private individual is not a public institution. Thus Article 16th is irrelevant to your claims; note the specific contents of the ENTIRE Article:
“That the people [“people” is plural, as in “We the people”; it is not, “We the individual,” or, “I the people”] have a right to bear arms [in well regulated militia, though the arms are owned, kept in possession of, and provided by the state/gov’t] for the defence of themselves AND [emphasis added; it is not “or” or “instead of”] the State–and as standing armies [usually back then the ONLY military force was the militia] in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty [i.e., self-gov’t], they ought not to be kept up; and that the military [which, again, was usually ONLY the militia] should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by [i.e., well regulated] the civil authority [i.e., gov’t].”
And see Chap. II, S. 22nd, which is also in effect at the same time as Article 16th, and which also applies to the militia, which is not a private individual:
“The inhabitants of this State shall be trained and armed [by the gov’t, the commander-in-chief being the governor] for its defence, under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions, as Congress, agreeably to the Constitution of the United States [see US Con., Art. I., S. 8., C. 16], and the Legislature of this State, shall direct. . . .”
Protection of the private individual right to own guns is in the separate S. 40th, which also stipulates that, beyond said S. 40th as instance of gun control, the General Assembly will enact additional gun control regulation.
The Founders not only didn’t overthrow any gov’ts; they also weren’t about to allow those they founded to be overthrown. That’s why the military is expressly to be in strict subordination to and governed by and regulated under law by the gov’t.
“nonsense”? Explain your nonsense to the 20 dead children, and their families — which children would not be dead if not for the possession of guns by those who should not have had them.
Article 16th exclusively concerns the militiary. The military is/are public institution/s, and not individuals. The private individual, such as you, is neither a military, nor a public institution, so the Article does not apply to you, or to any individuals.
See Chap. II, S. 22nd for the protection of the individual right to own guns — which is not the same as “carry,” which can be allowed or not, or “bear,” which latter is a job, and assigned exclusively to the militiary. And note that, beyond that section itself being gun control, it expressly stipulates that the General Assembly will enact additional gun control regulation applying to that private individual ownership.
You don’t get to pick and choose which fragments of law to rip out of context, malconstrue, and invoke, and which to reject as “inconvenient” because it refutes your ludicrous, self-serving claim on the point.
If you don’t live in Burlington, then stop attempting to spread your plague to Burlington based upon ahistorical and extra-legal gun industry propaganda.
Obviously those who filed the bills had made up their minds about the contents of them before even writing them. That you don’t like the contents doesn’t make any of that illegal.
This is how our gov’t works on the point — it’s in both US and Vermont
constitutions:
The ELECTED legislative body shall make the laws.
The UNELECTED do not get to make the laws because they are UNELECTED.
The UNELECTED did have the opportuinity to READ the bills before they were enacted.
All of which is constitutional despite the wet diapers it causes the tantrum-throwing malcontented whiners who didn’t get their way because in the minority.
I agree: one shouldn’t have to get off one’s lazy duff by reading more than one news source, else when one screws up by asserting paranoid conspirabunk for which there are no facts in evidence, one won’t be able to blame someone else for the screw-up.
Or as concerns the FOX cesspool and hate radio, one shouldn’t have to make the mature adult effort to get more than one slant of “opinion” falsely represented as being news.
“AND the state” doesn’t change the meaning champ.
the defense of themselves AND the state means that the right to posses and own a firearm serves two purposes that are separate. Otherwise it would read for the defense of the state.
SCOTUS has ruled in favor of an individuals right to carry a firearm for defense of THEMSELVES (2008)
SCOVT has ruled in favor of an individuals right to carry a fire for the defense of THEMSELVES (1903). From their ruling :
“the carrying of firearms for one’s defense is a
fundamental right of a citizen. The ordinance is repugnant to
the Constitution.”
Sorry friend but your argument that it is a right only for militia purposes is simply untrue. No one is telling you that you have to carry a firearm, why are you bent on telling someone else they can’t?
Nice try but there is nothing implying that Article 16 has anything to do with the military other than ‘the people’ having a right to defend themselves and the government being required to protect against standing armies in the same way the US 2nd amendment does. Also note that the entire first chapter is related to rights of the people and as for chapter II section 22, I don’t even know where you are going with that but Commissions and state seal have nothing to do with firearms. When Burlington stops attempting to undermine both the US and Vermont Constitutions then and only then will I stay out of Burlington politics.
So then your answer is to make everyone as unsafe as you are because you choose to be a victim? We all see how well gun control worked out in Connecticut. Gun free zones equate to unarmed target zones.
Must be the Mass Constitution that he is referring too, since that’s where he from…
No one is forcing everyone to be armed. That is MAIG speak. If you don’t like guns or don’t want one then no one cares. Simply don’t get one. If you consider arming yourself against law abiding gun owners then I must say you have made a clear case for the reinstatement of mental hospitals in our state and you should seek help immediately before you hurt yourself or someone else.
And you don’t get to make things up. This has all been ruled on time and again to your dismay. Don’t like it then move to a place that better suits your need for a lack of freedom.
Gun control and herd control are not one in the same. Neither the 2nd amendment or the Article 16 are related to hunting in any way.
That I can get down with.