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.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“…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.
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?
Logic and reasoning have no place in Burlington.
Cant wait to see them sued over the ccw part they cant supercede state law.
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.
I don’t think stupid politicians should exist, either, Mr. Siegel, but I can’t ban them, either.
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.
“Gun safety proposals.” Newspeak rejected. Gun SAFETY is what I practice in my home. Call it what it is. This is gun CONTROL.
“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.
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.”
Have you never driven a car, Ms. Siegel-Hypocrite? And just what else do you think should not exist? Private homes? Private property? Electricity? Phones? TV? Radio? Airplanes? Refrigerators? Washing machines?
Good grief.
As far as the permits are concerned. The Vermont Supreme Court has already decided the mater. They said pistol permits were repugnant to the Vermont constitution. If any of the proposals are passed the Gun Owners of Vermont will have Burlington in court. Unfortunately the Tax payers of Burlington will have to pay the costs of the suite. It will be substantial.
Ed Cutler
President
The Gun Owners of Vermont
What if you live in a Burlington neighborhood that has had a recent history of drug activity and shootings. You buy a gun for protection in case you are in the middle of a dangerous situation. In the middle of the night a person with a gun, who is looking for someone else, comes into your apartment because he has the wrong number. Being a law abiding citizen, you have locked up your gun in a safe. So what do you do now, say excuse me while I find thecombination to my safe so I can get my gun? At least the city still allows you to buy the gun to protect yourself, but using it is out of the question.
Kevin Kelly,(on a serious note) do some research on “Rosenthal V Rutland(or State)” and you will find out what a “money hole” Burlington is about to itself in. But Politicians will then blame the SCOVT after their CCW is determined “unconstitutional”. This whole charter change issue is a “smoke screen” to cover up how inept Blais is.
Good for Burlington… they keep electing these idiots, you get what you deserve. Now when crime spikes, robbery’s go up and the bank runs dry from defending itself in court you will have no one to blame but yourselves.
Keep voting for these knee jerk “feel good” morons. I’m so glad I moved out of BTV… look at them, worried about passing unconstitutional gun control laws, a livable wage that has been in effect for decades and other zany shit and yet no resolution to BTC has been achieved, the city’s roads are terrible, no one knows WTF is up with the Moron Plant and Miro spends more time hiding in his office then Kiss who pretty much bunkered himself in after he tried impose gun control limits in a characteristic progressive knee jerk reaction.
In light of the recent tragic events in Washington- with the out of control vehicle driven by an out of control person- that caused so much risk and turmoil, we CLEARLY must impose “reasonable restrictions†on: Minivans
High Capacity Minivans should be banned from civilian ownership and only be available to the military and law enforcement, lest these high horsepower ramming devices be used in ways that put our children at risk. The minivans of today have way more seats than they did ten or thirty years ago, and the Authors of the Constitution could never have imagined anything beyond a horse and buggy, let alone a vehicle with an engine with over a hundred horsepower that could ram the barriers in front of the White House. Even though the driver in this incident used a sedan, we at “Stop The Minivan Madness Now!” believe that sedans are merely a gateway to a pattern of behavior leading to acquiring instruments of greater potential violence such as minivans and SUVs. Minivans can be concealed as ordinary family vehicles, only to then have their potential lethality unleashed upon unsuspecting crowds or schools. Our children are at stake in this. Clearly, civilian transportation needs consistent with the expectations of the Founding Fathers could be met by restricting civilians to horses and buggys, or, if new technologies must (regrettably) be accomodated, pogosticks and unicycles.
Even though your comment is satire, apparently City Councilor Siegel would agree with it.