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!
most recent shootings were done by PISTOLS, not Large capacity magazines. If highly trained police officers miss most of the time under high stress situations, why can’t I carry the same firearm to defend myself as they do
Funny how ignorant people are when it comes to prevention.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/307
This new law is great, it will insure that school shooters will leave their 30 round mags at home when they decide to kill students. If bad people followed laws there would be zero shootings, passing more laws will just criminalize the good people, if you cant catch the criminals , just make criminals out of the good people.
When I was a kid we probably plotted to blow up the school a couple of times a month. We were just being kids and fantasizing about our frustration with the system that hated. The reality was that we were never going to act out violently against our fellow students.
Short of sending swat teams to kick in everyone’s door and confiscate all firearms you are not going to change anything.
We seem to feel that the problems in our society are a result of the guns or the drugs that are available in our society but ignore the real cause of our states dilemma. The politicians are trying to push this idealistic utopia in Vermont and the end result is that most people can barely afford to live and pay their bills.
Rather than simply allowing staff to carry and also to teach gun safety, which would absolutely keep schools safer without busting the bank….. the very first things the liberal left pushes is to violate the 2nd Amendment, which is out of the question….not going to happen, VT. law or no law. There is no accounting for the mindlessness of this…. unless there is intent to disarm us.
Gov. Scott missed a good opportunity to unite people of Vermont in keeping our schools & students safe. You have to be naive to think that gun owners aren’t as troubled or concerned about safety in our schools. If he would have only contacted our state’s many firearms clubs & organizations he would have found out about National School Shield. An organization that will help all schools with analyzing potential threats & then design a plan to help prevent school violence, shootings or other problems. This service is offered free by the N.R.A. That may be the reason schools shy away from it. Know this people the N.R.A. is all about safety & always has been. They employ the best of our military as trainers & train police,military & civilians. The Gov. split the state wide open for no reason in signing S-55. Know this,that kid in Florida used 10 round magazines.
Headline today, “4 Dead in Shooting at Waffle House in Tenn”: Four customers were also wounded. The carnage would have been much greater except for the heroism of a customer who wrestled the AR-15 away from the shooter. The time has come to place metal detectors at the entrance of every Waffle House in America. Moreover, lets arm all cooks and waitresses so we can better enjoy breakfast.
Where we live we can choose what we want to do, or not do; that is our own business. That is freedom.
Don’t mess with it. Mind your own business. The comments here indicate snowflakes abound.
If you want to make schools safer, teach the residents and students to use guns safely, to appreciate them, to become good marksmen, to know to never point a gun at anyone, to learn safe handling and care for a gun. Learn respect for them and their historical importance. The military would appreciate gun savvy kids too, not the flabby milquetoasts they have to choose from now who know nothing about weapons.
Currently, ignorance rules, but we are protected by the Constitutional guarantee that no law will ever trespass upon what a citizen may use as a weapon. It is illegal to do so. We know that, and will follow the Constitution.
If you want safer schools, allow staff to carry; post the grounds to inform others that the school is protected and violators may be injured if they act inappropriately. This would also be more fiscally responsible, not taxing us into poverty to pay for. That is responsibility. No arguments. Is this clear?
If you don’t care about safety in schools, pretend that infringing upon citizen’s rights will protect them. It won’t.
The newly passed gun law in a disgrace to Vermont, and to America. It is shameful and will be overturned.
Yesterday I was not permitted to send a tweet to VT. Governor Phil Scott questioning his statement that by passing gun control legislation limiting what Vermonters can have for a weapon was “doing all he could to protect children in schools”.
Many of us requested gun safety courses, gun competitions, allowing staff to carry, and posting warnings that staff was armed.
I was prohibited from sending this comment in any form, stated in any way. This in violation of the 1st Amendment, Should we be concerned about government’s violations of our rights?
I see a lot of people “Interpreting” The Vermont Constitution to suit themselves, and their own beliefs. Maybe, just maybe, we should “Interpret” the Vermont Constitution in the true spirit that it was intended by the men who wrote it. Did the men who wrote this constitution own, possess, or even dream of firearms magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds? Likely not, as the state of the art firearms of their day were of the muzzle loading, single shot variety. However, If one could bring these men back to life, to answer questions about such magazines, It seems likely that they would answer with a strong affirmation that said magazines are indeed permissible, and even desirable for ownership by all persons. These men meant for the people of the state of Vermont to own and possess the latest and best firearms available to them. These men were in the midst of a battle to rid the state of control by oppressive government forces. They intended to pass along to their descendants, the right, and the equipment to do so, in the future if the need should arise. To that end, No thoughtful individual could come to the conclusion that the intent of the Vermont Constitution was to allow only the possession of “Politacally Correct” firearms, magazines, or ammunition. These men meant for the citizens of Vermont, to be protected from subjugation by any government, foreign or domestic.
Joseph Nagarya, I am glad to see you have done your homework and cited the constitution to some of the people who think large magazines have been around for centuries or hundreds of years. They obviously don’t know what a century is and also don’t know what is in the constitution.