A Burlington City Council committee voted on Wednesday to remove a ban on assault weapons from a package of gun-safety proposals tentatively scheduled to be presented to the full council later this month.

The committee did agree to send to the council four local gun-related initiatives. They would require a police-issued permit in order to carry a concealed firearm; ban firearms in any establishment with a liquor license; enable police to confiscate any dangerous weapon in incidents involving allegations of domestic abuse; and mandate that firearms be securely stored when not in the immediate possession of a gun owner.

The committee’s rejection of the assault rifle ban potentially negates the council’s initial response to the slaughter last December of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. The killer, Adam Lanza, used a type of weapon that would be covered by the ban that the Burlington council had urged in January be applied in Vermont’s largest city.

Kevin J. Kelley is a contributing writer for Seven Days, Vermont Business Magazine and the daily Nation of Kenya.

17 replies on “Burlington Council Panel Rejects Assault Weapons Ban, Supports Four Gun-Safety Proposals”

  1. No Vermont municipality may impose a firearms law that circumvents the rights & laws set forth by the State Constitution…..”Permits? We don’ need no stinking permits!”
    “The Treasure of Sierra Madre, 19?? with apologies to Humphrey Bogart.”

  2. “It would have to be pretty hefty,” Schirling replied, noting that it costs his department a minimum of $50,000 to add an employee.
    It costs his department a minimum of $50,000 everytime the Deputy Chief gets behind the wheel of a car.

  3. “Gun safety proposals.” Newspeak rejected. Gun SAFETY is what I practice in my home. Call it what it is. This is gun CONTROL.

  4. I doubt it can be enforced, with the exception that after a shooting BPD can tack on an extra $50 ticket to the homicide charge.

  5. I don’t think stupid politicians should exist, either, Mr. Siegel, but I can’t ban them, either.

  6. Doesn’t think the internal combustion engine should exist? Seriously? And it’s silly to have a local ordinance requiring a concealed carry permit. Rules like that should at a minimum be statewide so people don’t have to worry about Googling for laws each time they cross from one town into the next.

  9. Prior to requiring CCW, the program should be in place and fully functional – applications, handbooks, training aids, license/ID’s, etc. Details need to be worked out – is there reciprocity? who is allowed to apply? who is not allowed to apply? how will posting of the city limits/notification be provided when the rest of the State does NOT require permitting of any kind? Additionally, how will the mandate that firearms be securely stored when not in the immediate possession of a gun owner be enforced? Random door-to-door checks? With or without search warrants? In 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but U.S. attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them. SEVENTY SEVEN!! Don’t make laws that you can’t or aren’t going to enforce. Why waste everyone’s time with a knee-jerk namby-pamby feel-good resolution that serves no purpose?

  10. “…mandate that firearms be securely stored when not in the immediate possession of a gun owner.”
    I would be keenly interested in more details on this proposal, especially in terms of how exactly it will be enforced.

Comments are closed.