Updated 3:10 p.m.
A coalition of Vermont gun groups sued the state Wednesday, arguing that newly passed ammunition magazine limits run afoul of the Vermont Constitution.
The plaintiffs — the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association, two sporting goods stores and one gun owner — are being represented by Brady Toensing, vice chair of the Vermont Republican Party, and Cooper & Kirk, a Washington, D.C., law firm that has represented the National Rifle Association in multiple cases.
The suit, filed in Washington Superior Court, came one week after Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed into law sweeping gun legislation to mandate background checks, raise the purchasing age for firearms to 21 and ban bump stocks, in addition to establishing the magazine limits.
The law prohibits Vermonters from buying magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds for rifles and more than 15 rounds for handguns. The gun groups are seeking an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced while the case is argued.
In a written statement, Attorney General T.J. Donovan, a Democrat who supported the new laws, said his office had anticipated the suit. “We are prepared and will vigorously defend Vermont law,” he said.
In a statement of his own, Republican Gov. Phil Scott said, “I’m confident the new law is consistent with the Vermont Constitution and appreciate the Attorney General’s support and commitment in defending State law.”
The lawsuit states that the magazine ban “impermissibly burdens and infringes the fundamental right of law-abiding Vermont citizens to bear arms in their own defense,” a violation of the Vermont Constitution. Article 16 guarantees people the “right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.”
The suit further claims that magazine limits “will make law-abiding Vermont citizens more vulnerable to criminal attack by depriving them of commonly-owned ammunition magazines” — an especially “pernicious” risk given the rural nature of the state.
It uses Revolutionary War hero Ethan Allen and his brother, Ira, to illustrate the state’s long tradition of using firearms “in defense of state and self,” noting that the Green Mountain Boys, led by Ethan Allen, used their own guns to lay claim to Fort Ticonderoga in 1775.
Under the new law, gun stores have until October 1, 2018, to sell off existing inventory, and magazines purchased by that date will remain legal. Vermont gun manufacturers can continue to sell magazines out-of-state, an exemption Toensing helped secure, and high-capacity magazines will be permitted at gun competitions until July 1, 2019.
Despite those carve-outs, the suit suggests that magazine restrictions will reduce participation in firearms competitions, harming the clubs that host them, and cause “significant financial loss” at gun stores, including the plaintiffs, Powderhorn Outdoor Sports Center in Williston and Locust Creek Outfitters in Bethel.
The only individual plaintiff is Leah Stewart, who co-owns Locust Creek Outfitters and, according to the lawsuit, has an AR-15 as well as multiple handguns that use magazines with more than 10 or 15 rounds.
In a statement, Sportsmen’s Club president Chris Bradley expressed confidence that the court would rule in the gun groups’ favor. “Many of the most popular rifles and pistols come standard with magazines in excess of these new limits,” he wrote. “The Vermont Constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms prevents the State from requiring law-abiding Vermonters to defend themselves and their families with sub-standard firearm magazines.”
As of Wednesday, the Sportmen’s Club had raised close to $23,000 for legal expenses on the crowd-funding site GoFundMe.
Sen. Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden), a longtime proponent of gun control, isn’t concerned.
“Anybody who was out in front of the building during the [bill] signing ceremony knows that these are very aggressive people,” he said. “It was a forgone conclusion that they would use the court system in an equally aggressive way, so I can’t say that anybody is surprised. But we had leg[islative] counsel thoroughly review this legislation, as did the governor, and I’m absolutely confident it will pass muster.”
Here’s the court filing:
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Centuries are composed of years, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The most famous example, a semi automatic air rifle with a 21 round magazine.
Going into the future by another century brings the gatling gun and other advancements with larger capacities.
Try researching a topic before making a fool of yourself.
” The United States is not a Democracy, its actually a Republic. Education is key..
Yes: education is key:
The essence of democracy is elections. The US Constitution stipulates that there shall be elections. The US is a DEMOCRATIC republic.
In addition: it makes no sense to jabber about “rights” in a democracy while at the same time rejecting democracy.
GERO, large capacity magazines have not been around for centuries but years, I do also think the state constitution needs to be updated as back then military weaponry didn’t have large capacity magazines and semi automatic weapons
The quote is from the state’s “Militia Clause,” which distinguishes between two military forces: militia — “the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State,” and standing army. And note the “AND”.
The plaintiffs are not a militia, though they threaten to become a standing army. And they omit the constitutional provision that does apply:
Chap. II., S. XXXIX. [T]he inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl, in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly.
1. To “hunt and fowl” are protected limitations, and gun control is constitutional, both Federal and state.
2. Assault rifles have no legitimate civilian uses, let alone to “hunt and fowl”. They are not protected by the Vermont constitution.
What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand people ?
I’m no lawyer, but it’s pretty hard to see how these groups have standing to pursue this litigation. Indeed, it seems a textbook violation of the first 2 general principles stated here and a potential violation of the 3rd as well: “The classic standards are
that usually advanced in legal papers discussing standing are: (1) that the
injury alleged by the plaintiff is imminent; (2) that the alleged injury is
concrete and particularized rather than a general grievance; (3) that it is
likely rather than merely speculative that the alleged injury will be
redressed by a favorable judgment” http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/The%20Doc…
I have a hard time following the “Alamo mentality” that one needs 30 round magazines to protect oneself from home invasions. Statistics show that with guns in your home, you are much more likely to be killed by a family member than you are from an intruder.
It says right in the Vermont constitution, “Citizens shall have the right to military weaponry, because… uh… You never know when you’re going to be attacked by dozens of terrorists at the same time.”
Good fight back for your rights
PENELOPE The United States is not a Democracy, its actually a Republic. Education is key.