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!
great to see the legal x-spurts referring to the u.s. bil of rights,. the suit is under the state constitution,. got a feeling thay din’t even know difference,.. chittenden county should be ceded to it’s occupant’s new york,..
b
When will the fight for American’s Civil Rights (all of them) end?
If we can all agree that:
1. Self defense against any unlawful attack is a basic human right.
2. That as a basic human right, self defense is and should always be considered a Civil Right of the People and thus the exercise of that right must be immune from restriction, infringement, licensing or taxation by Government at any level.
3. That the Civil Rights of the People are not subject to the approval of the Majority Opinion and belong to every Individual regardless of their social status.
4. That any infringement, restriction, licensing requirements or taxation levied on the free exercise of a Civil Right is a violation of that right.
5. That any law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages the free exercise of any Civil Right is an infringement on that right.
6. That if a law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages a Citizen from legally acquiring the tools, weapons or means to freely exercise their Civil Rights, then their rights have been infringed.
-Then it follows that those who advocate for the preservation of the right of the People to keep and bear arms are, in fact, Civil Rights advocates. It also follows that those who oppose the right of the People to keep and bear arms are against the People’s civil rights.
We have a word for people who advocate for or try to use the force of law to infringe on the civil rights of others: we call them Bigots.
David Boisen:
“What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand people ?”
I understand several things about it, including the fact that it is ripped out of its controlling context: MILITARY forces.
Homework:
Go back and READ the VT “Militia Clause” at Chap. I., XV, which includes that phrase. Read it again and again until you UNDERSTAND it:
That “Militia Clause” distinguishes between TWO forms of MILITARY forces:
1. Militia: the phrase “right of the people to bear arms” is the MILITIA.
2. Standing armies.
It has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.
Then read the securing of the INDIVIDUAL right, at Chap. II., S. XXXIX, which EXPRESSLY stipulates limits thereon, and EXPRESSLY stipulates that the General Assembly can enact FURTHER gun control.
Extra credit: The “Bill of Rights” is not the whole US Constitution. And the whole Constitution is in effect at the same time. READ that portion of the US Constitution which was ratified BEFORE the Bill of Rights was written, ratified, and added.
See in particular these two provisions, which ALSO apply to the Militia:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15.
Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.
Of all of the above, the only RELEVANT legal provision — that which actually applies to an individual “right” — is VT Con., Chap. II, S. XXXIX.
A well-tailored suite, being necessary to the sharpness of a fine gentleman, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes, shall not be infringed.
Those rights are natural, the bor simply acknowledged that. They are not limited to that list.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.beatles/gUSKQnUw6W4
24 years and you haven’t changed a bit.
Nobody likes a spammer.
Aaron Ploof:
“definition is as accurate as “assault weapons” in so much as a literal rock could be an “assault weapon” if used to carry out assault.”
1. How many rounds per minute can your “literal rock” shoot?
(Google is your friend: look up “apples and oranges” on your Internet.)
2. In LAW, we use LEGAL dictionaries — not random slop on the Internet of no known provenance.
The reasons gun proponents come up with the most outlandish claims in defense of owning guns are two:
They don’t actually know the history of the US, and the Founders — who engaged in every form of gun control including “gun-grabbing”.
They haven’t any REASONABLE “arguments,” so grab for the hyperbolic nearest their conscious mind. And that is irresponsible.
I suppose it isn’t remarkable that they never listen to themselves — and how absurd and nonsensical their claims — which are invariably NOT backed up with a shred of legitimate EVIDENCE. And that is irresponsible.
Posted by Cheryl Pariseau on 04/18/2018 at 3:21 PM .
“what did they do before magazines were so large?”
Presumably nothing since magazines carrying over 10 rounds have been available for literal centuries.
______________
For which latter claim you provide not a shred of evidence.
When will you be reading the Vermont constitution for the first time? —
The clause in the VT constitution which speaks of standing armies is the “Militia Clause,” the Militia being “the right of the people to bear arms.”
The Clause exists to govern the MILITIA. A Militia is not an individual. The SOURCES of the Second Amendment were four state constitution Militia Clauses, including VT’s Article XV. It is located in CHAPTER I. of the constitution.
The INDIVIDUAL “right” to own guns, and subjecting of that to regulation — gun control — is in CHAPTER II., at XXXIX.
And serving in the Militia is a DUTY, not a right.
And the Militia is governed and regulated under not only the constitution but also statutes called “Militia Acts”.
And note the first three words of the US Constitution:
“We the people.”
It is not, “We the individual.”
It is not, “I the people.”
It is INARGUABLE that “people” is PLURAL.
Yes: I have an education in law. And I have been researching and studying this very issue for 29 years.
Why 30? Because police have a hit rate under 20%
If trained police in situations they need to use a weapon have less than 1 in 5 shots hit the target, normal people in situations they are even less prepared to handle would most likely be even worse.
The statistics also show that this is the safest years we’ve ever had in America. Every single crime is down, and has been going down since before the beginning or end of the assault weapons ban. The CDC says at least 500,000 people’s lives are saved by defensive use of a gun. Not shooting in self defense, just having the gun.
Will Waizenegger:
“Penelope,
Name another country that has the same constitution as the U.S. with the same rights and protections. That will answer your questions.”
Amazing how many gun proponents jabber about a Constitution they’ve never bothered to read:
US Con., Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions.
The gun industry and its propaganda front notwithstanding, there is no “right” to “take up arms” against the gov’t/rule of law.
And see “Shays’s” — under the “Articles of Confederation” — and “Whiskey” rebellion — under the US Constitution AFTER the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment was ratified. The “rebels” were charged with, tried for, and convicted of TREASON and sentenced to death.
Nor is there a “right” to own guns: it is a revocable privilege: if you rob a bank with your legal gun, when sent to prison you will not be allowed to take your legal gun with you. And that “exception” to LaPierre’s loony absolutism is sufficient to demolish the absolute.
Chapter DCCXXIX.
_An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators._
Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
[Section I.] _Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention,_ That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges. . . .
Passed July 19, 1776. “Ordinances passed by the Constitutional Convention, June-September, 1776,” _The Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801, Vol. IX, 1776 to 1779_ (Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1903), Edited by Commissioners James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, at 11.