Police have responded 29 times in the past year to incidents on the single block of Spring Street opposite the Integrated Arts Academy at H.O. Wheeler in Burlington’s Old North End.
Principal Bobby Riley insists both the school and the neighborhood are safe, but Jeff Sherman, a resident of one of the units in the 69-85 block of Spring Street, describes conditions there as “pretty bad.” The sense of danger has grown in the 12 years he’s lived there, Sherman says.
In February 2011, a domestic assault spilled onto the street in front of the elementary school, whereupon a man fired a shot that didn’t hurt anyone. The students were on vacation that week, but Wheeler went into lockdown to protect the staff inside.
On the same block this past March, city cops, state troopers and federal agents raided a home just before dawn and charged its occupants with selling heroin and cocaine. In July, a police officer was allegedly assaulted after responding to reports of BB guns being fired; and last week a man was seen waving a gun in the street, sending the pre-K-5 school back into “modified lockdown” 24 hours before the first day of school.
In the latest incident, a charge of disorderly conduct was filed against a 23-year-old man said to have been menacing passing cars with what was later found to be a BB rifle. Displaying a gun in this way — even in proximity to a school — does not constitute an offense under Vermont law unless a specific person complains of feeling endangered, says Burlington Police Chief Mike Schirling.
(Update: The state terminated the case against Toryn Hill, 23, and his unarmed friend, Tanouce Crusade, 25, in Vermont Superior Court on January 17.)*
The law “needs an update, in our estimation, and has been on our legislative list for some time,” Schirling notes.
The chief suggested earlier this year that the city council should consider enabling officers to seize an unconcealed gun from a suspicious individual who appears to be heading for a school. Rachel Siegel, chair of a city council committee considering local gun-control measures, said in an interview on Saturday that Schirling’s proposal “sounds like something I would support.”
Last December’s Newtown massacre — in which a lone shooter gunned down 26 educators and students at an elementary school in Connecticut — is what prompted the Burlington City Council to begin discussing local limits on guns. Siegel’s panel is formulating a set of restrictions that may be presented to Burlington voters next March as a first step toward requisite changes in the city charter.
In an interview on the first day of the school year, Principal Riley downplayed the circumstances that have prompted extensive police activity on a block 20 yards from the arts academy.
“The Old North End has a skewed reputation,” Riley said. “While it’s unfortunate that incidents have occurred so close to the building, in none of these incidents were students or staff at this school in any danger.”
He added that he has never considered moving his own daughter from the arts academy to another school. Several other parents are also powerfully attracted to the magnet school. Riley notes that 19 children have transferred to the arts academy during the past two years and that almost half of its current set of 43 kindergartners come from neighborhoods outside the Old North End.
During a “modified lockdown,” such as the one during last week’s gun-waving incident, no one is permitted to enter or leave the building, but students and staff are permitted to circulate in the interior — with the proviso that they stay away from windows, Riley explains. In a full lockdown, teachers are instructed to keep their students in classrooms, which are then locked from the inside.
*Updated 04/25/14 to reflect the fact that the disorderly conduct charges against Hill and Crusade have been dropped.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
You cant hunt, so why are guns allowed in the city limits? Just saying…..Why would you need a gun unless your a policeman, security officer or drug dealer. No guns in the city limits would cure all.
It isn’t up to you to say. There’s that little document called the Constitution, and therein the 2nd Amendment. Stop thinking with your emotions.
I’m sure the criminals would take heed if there were no guns allowed. Oh wait…
Nothing in the Second Amendment limits the ability of a governmental body from restricting guns within a properly designated school zone. Parading the Second Amendment every time someone even discusses sensible gun laws is cowardly at best. Cowards do not want an intelligent discussion, just being able to hide behind the Second Amendment is good enough for them.
Got any date to support that, Brian?
Chicago is a great example.
The term “shall not be infringed” must escape you.
Really? You call that data? In that case, here’s some for you: Australia, Canada, France, the UK…. Basically every other industrialized country in the world.
“not infringed” in terms of maintaining a militia.
Which, coincidentally all have more gun violence per capita than the United States.
Next argument.
You do realize “militia” is referring to a citizenry. The “militia” is NOT the National Guard. The National Guard is a Federal Entity.
On this topic, accusing 2nd Amendment supporters of hiding behind the 2nd Amendment is quite hypocritical considering Anti-Gun groups like to capitalize on the “militia” statement to the ill-informed.
Also, I shouldn’t really need to back data up on Chicago, it’s well known to be the city with the highest murder rate in the country, as well as being a city where there are no weapons in city limits.
Criminals by definition, do not obey the law.
Completely ridiculous argument.
It would take you all of 5 seconds to do a google search or to go to the FBI website. In regard to the other countries you mention. Take a look at ‘violent’ crime increases rather than just one aspect of crime. While you are at it you may also want to look at other aspects such as quality of life, jobs, economy and et cetera. Australia now likes to burn people alive instead but shootings have also been on the rise for years despite their gun ban. In the UK, they like to stab people and bludgeon them to death. Try actually expanding your research beyond the anti gun websites and you may be shocked with what you find.
Where the heck do you get that? Seriously, comprehension is an amazing thing. The militia is to be well-regulated, not the arms. The portion regarding infringement is specific to the arms and is a warning against undermining the right. The people must have access and possession of arms in order to form said well regulated militias in the event that they are needed to secure the state of being free. You should understand the difference between a justification clause and an operative clause.
Gun ownership has very little to do with hunting and the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. I am not sure if any of you grasp this but you are all bringing up the same tired arguments that Leahy used in the 60s and Vermont has already had it’s fair share of attempted ordinance changes to infringe on the 2nd amendment. Note that they have all been overturned for a reason.
This article is an extremely biased anti gun propaganda piece making an issue out of a non-issue which has come to be expected from 7D.
Vermont statute 13 V.S.A § 4011. Aiming gun at another This one covers the aiming of a firearm and even a BB gun at another person regardless of location.
13 V.S.A. § 4004. Possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a school bus or school building or on school property
This one covers a person with a BB gun on school property and their act of pointing or aiming it at someone confirms their intent.
13 V.S.A. § 4003. Carrying dangerous weapons
Again aiming at people confirms intent.
13 V.S.A. § 4009. Negligent use of gun
In the event of an actual discharged weapon this one applies.
A firearm by definition is a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun. There is nothing that states a firearm is specifically a weapon that takes cartridge ammunition.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act makes it clear that a person cannot be within 1000′ of a school while in possession of a firearm unless the firearm is within their private property or being transported unloaded from their property to a vehicle or other means of transporting said weapon.
Paula Evans, Constitutional Rights are a new concept for you I guess? As well as “self defense”?
Tiki, those nations have an analog to the Second Amendment? Citations, please?
What other lawfully exercised rights should be restricted in a “school zone” (definition, please?) due to the actions of a few criminals? First Amendment? Fourth? Thirteenth?
By what rules of grammar? “…the right of the people…”, not “the right of the militia”.
This editorial is out of the theater of the “Absurd”. “Oh, Guns are the problem we hate guns.” The Old North End has always been a mixed community of immigrants, working poor and small businesses reflecting the mix of the community. Many of the immigrants come from countries where police are seen as the forces of oppression not a force for safety. Police need to get out of their cars, walk the streets and get to know the people. We need to stop spending thousands of dollars setting up sobriety check-points at the University stopping nearly 700 sober drivers to net one DUI and spend that money on community policing in the Old North End. We need to stop the revolving door policy on violent criminal like the Brooks character involved in the shooting this weekend in the North End who also was arrested two weeks earlier after stealing a motorcycle and leading the police on a high speed chase into Winooski. The man has a criminal record of narcotics arrests yet he is not charge with gun violations. Why? There is absurdity in how we treat criminals, but crimes are committed by Criminals not guns.
The failures of the mental Health system also add to the problem. A man or child firing or waving a BB gun has problems. Our Mental Health System dumps these people in our community without the support structure to help them and keep us safe. We turn to the police for help and then charge the officer with a crime after he is assaulted, injured and fires his weapon. Then release the mentally ill person because he is mentally ill. Sounds like Absurdity to me. Blame it all on the “Guns.”
As Brian Shaw has pointed out nicely below there are a whole host of laws on the books already regulating this type of thing.
Maybe this article should be less about banning guns and more about asking Chief Schirling why his department is failing at their jobs, especially in such an important area.
“Data” you can’t handle the “Data”. Chicago Homicides since 1990:
2012: 506 2000: 633
2011: 435 1999: 643
2010: 436 1998: 704
2009: 459 1997: 761
2008: 513 1996: 796
2007: 448 1995: 828
2006: 471 1994: 931
2005: 451 1993: 855
2004: 453 1992: 943
2003: 601 1991: 927
2002: 656 1990: 851
2001: 667
This City has some of the most stringent gun laws.
Vermont had a rate of 1.1 in 2011 with the most lenient of Gun Laws
Amazing to see how people like Brian actually defend this nation’s horrific gun death rate. The whole “Yeah, but…” argument falls on deaf ears for the families of tens of thousands of people murdered every year at the wrong end of a gun.
Brian’s original claim was: “I’m sure the criminals would take heed if there were no guns allowed. Oh wait…” This implies that criminals target victims because of gun-free zones. It is a myth and as you have demonstrated, you have no data to support the argument other than tired right-wing claims about Chicago.
I think a majority of Burlingtonians would agree that we should not give the benefit of the doubt to gun wielders over the safety of our youngest school children.
“No Guns” were involved in this violence in the “Old North End”
“Police arrested Hassan Folks, 28, of Brooklyn, N.Y. on suspicion of lying to an officer and Sara Blanchard of Burlington on suspicion of possession of cocaine, ecstasy and heroin.
Officers were searching Monday for two men suspected of stabbing Folks, Burlington Deputy Police Chief Bruce Bovat wrote in a statement issued Monday morning…” (BFP, Tuesday)
By the way for those who are looking for a “Black” connection to this “Stabbing”, The assaillent were described as “White Males.”
“Facts, We don’t need no stinking Facts” is that really your answer. Vermont has the lowest rate of Violence in the Country and one of the lowest rates of Crime. Yet you mis-characterize those who support Gun-Rights as Anti-children. We want existing laws enforced. We want Criminals who used guns in crime arrested, charged and convicted of those crimes. We do not want innocent lawful owners of firearms to have their property confiscated, illegally. We want the City of Burlington to follow the US Constitution, the Vermont Constitution and State Law and not go off on its own by banning guns. We want a system of Justice whereby violent criminals are sent to jail, not cited to appear in court, not release R.O.R. We want a Mental Health System that cares for its patients even the violent one and does not dump them in the community with little support to be preyed upon and to commit act of violence that they can not be held accountable for making. ?Your as bad about this issue as the worst of the “Tea Party” nuts are about Their issues.
This is from another gun control state.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com…
As gun fetishists see it, the 2nd amendment is there so they can fight tyranny.
To do that, they would use their guns to kill federal officers… when THEY think there’s tyranny.
Kind of makes reasonable people want the ‘well regulated militia” part of the 2nd amendment actually have some meaning.
But at the SCOTUS has ruled, those words are merely decorative.
New amendment anyone?
Claims about Chicago? What part of that is claims? Please, I’ll wait for your answer.
Gun control doesn’t work, Chicago all but proves it. Criminals don’t follow the law by definition. I don’t think it really matters to criminals whether it is a “gun-free zone” or not, and of course, you “implied” for me, rather than letting me say it for myself. It’s pretty self explanatory, criminals by definition (again) do not follow laws, so what is the point of making yet another law targeting the law-abiding, rather than the criminals who wield. That war on drugs sure is working out, for example.
As for the personal attacks, you really lend yourself no credibility for your cause, you just say “for the children.”
Well guess what, wielding emotion for the sake of tearing up the Constitution is exactly how Hitler succeeded.
“The wrong end of a gun” is, of course misleading. You make NO mention as to whether the “gun-wielder” is a law abiding citizen, or a criminal, to which readers may assume ALL “gun-wielders” are criminals.
Which is of course, ludicrous. You, I can imagine have walked by thousands of people in your life who were concealing a firearm without your knowledge. They never committed a crime, nor have the millions of law-abiding gun owners.
This is another famous stereotype because one person does it, they ALL must.
Gun wielders, as you so put it, are Law Enforcement Officers as well. I suggest if you ever need them, not to bother to call, since you are so worried about them being gun-wielders.
“The horrific gun death rate” you speak of, actually is worst in states that have the toughest gun laws.
Take Washington DC for example, where guns are banned, it has 31.2 firearm related deaths per capita, the highest in the United states.
Where is Vermont on this list you wonder? Near the bottom.
Last but not least, the 2nd Amendment. How many freedoms are you willing to give away in the name of protection? The Constitution is what gives you your right to free speech, if that were taken away “for your safety” you would be just as loud as 2nd Amendment supporters are.
But as you allude to saying, “who cares about the Constitution, its the children that matter.” Maybe we can get rid of the right to free speech in the process. Being hypocritical gets you nowhere, and lends you ZERO credibility.
It’s quite amusing sometimes listening to it. They are the first to scream about guns being around, yet also the first to scream about their right to free speech. One in the same. Gotta love my daily dose of hypocrites in the morning.
Also, the “modern firearms” argument on how they “didn’t mean that,” is always interesting because the internet is certainly included in the right to free speech.
While the 2nd amendment is there as a ‘last resort’ to fight tyranny, it is predominately there to defend the state of being free from any that would seek to undermine it, be it a criminal, terrorist or whatever have you. Just an FYI, the well-regulated militia part does have plenty of meaning and there are a number of them already. There are also over 1400 unregulated militias and I can honestly say that I do not want to see them regulated nor do I imagine you would.
The City of Burlington might consider incentivizing building owners to renovate the run down and crappy homes in the area. A little gentrification might make the neighborhood less appealing to random shooters and drug dealers.
I support my 2nd amendment right and I would not “use guns to kill federal officers”. That is just plain ignorant.
No one needs to be a rocket scientist of see that criminals
commit crimes with guns, not law abiding citizens. Since criminals don’t obey the law, why make more?
Lets talk about that “last resort”.
That means shooting feds if someone…basically, any gun owner… decides it’s time to go to the “last resort”.
Or do you see it differently?
Guns are NOT just for militias; the SCOTUS has so ruled.
The fact that there ARE militias have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment any more than the existence of auto clubs has to do with the 2nd amendment.
No Angela, it’s not ignorant.
Brian is correct that the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting. See below; you’ll see that he agrees it’s there as a “last resort” against tyranny.
One would hope that a “well regulated militia” would have something to do with that, but the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.
Just a friendly suggestion; be sure you know what you’re talking about before you call people ignorant.
That last resort would be in the event that there is a clear and present threat to the people’s lives and their freedom. I do not envision such a time in the United States but I would not rule out the possibility. If the governor of the state of Vermont called on the militia to defend the state against a rogue sect of the federal government that would be one such case.
I agree that guns are definitely not just for the militia. That is why the 2nd amendment was written in the way that it was. The operative clause states that the people have the right to bear arms and then it gives a strict warning against undermining that right. It doesn’t say the militia has the right which is a given as the people who the militia would be comprised of would already have arms or the ability to access them. The necessity of a well-regulated militia is from the justification clause.
You are right that the fact that there are militias has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, I only drew focus to the fact that there actually are active militias of which some are well-regulated. In Vermont we have a number of militias. The most notable being the Vermont State Guard, not to be confused with the Vermont National Guard which is a federalized army as per the Militia Act of 1903 otherwise known as the Dick Act.
Seriously? You’re pulling the Hitler card? Oh Brian, talk about sweeping the credibility carpet from under your own feet….
Hey, sounds like you have it all figured out: Criminals don’t obey laws, therefore we need no laws. That’s what you’re saying. May as well take murder off the books. Criminals don’t care about that legality stuff.
And while you’re scrubbing the books like a 1984 instant replay, you may as well scrub Australia’s hugely successful gun control laws. Canada? Bah, just ignore them. Go ahead and latch onto Chicago: one city in one state in a country that leads the world in gun proliferation – and deaths.
All well and good, but if individuals can own guns (check) in part for the purpose of preventing tyranny (check) then what comprises tyranny and the appropriate response is necessarily an individual call.
The Constitution isn’t The Bible. It can be and has been changed.
But even without a constitutional change, the 2nd amendment can be interpreted differently than it has been, and indeed,Heller was a 5/4 decision.
Maybe in the socialist city of Burlington they could just send some of the hilltoppers down that way to create socioeconomic equality throughout the city.
Tiki, I’m curious. Do you view the crime in the Old North End to be caused by Vermont’s gun laws or do you see it as a result of the socio-economic conditions? What is the root cause of conditions in the ONE?
Hi Josh – There are many causes of crime. However, the common theme among criminals is that guns are the most effective and efficient tool to threaten &/or hurt others. Regulating lethal weaponry here in Burlington is not unreasonable. Even 80% of NRA members support background checks.
Do guns cause crime?
“However, the common theme among criminals is that guns are the most
effective and efficient tool to threaten &/or hurt others.”
What? Where did this come from?
Who knows…but if anyone is interested in actual facts, here are some statistics on weapons use and violent crime from the Bureau of Justice. In the end, the root causes of crime need to be addressed. Some of the people running Burlington right now are straight out of an episode of Portlandia.
I don’t know where that 80% of NRA members stat comes from but I assure you that it is fictitious. No one has any record of NRA’s members other than the NRA themselves and the NRA says that stat is bogus. Anyone can claim they are a member when polled but that claim does not hold up. As for support of background checks though, many gun owners do of course support background checks. What they do not support is the so-called universal background check which equates to a national registry that is explicitly forbidden by law and then also required background checks for private sale which is well beyond Constitutional. I mean we could go there and require background checks for other privately owned property as well but I can assure you that no one will appreciate how that ends.
I do agree that guns are a most efficient tool but their efficiency is not limited to criminal use. That efficiency serves rather well in self defense hence, so many people use them for self defense.
Regulating law abiding ownership of firearms does not serve to decrease crime but it does however serve to undermine the individuals right to protect themselves and their family.
Brian – you can compare “violent crime” if you like, but I think “Deaths from violent crime” is a better measure. Compare cities of like population density, where the major difference in the legal environment is the availability of firearms, and deaths from violent crime are much lower where guns are banned. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that while people who don’t have guns might use knives and other weapons, guns are substantially more lethal.
But we don’t hear about the abundantly clear data regarding the efficacy of banning guns on reducing deaths from crime because its irrelevant in the U.S. – banning guns is impossible both legally and practically, and “limiting” guns only in certain regions (like a city) is ineffective when guns can just come in from elsewhere.
What are you even talking about, the other countries listed have drastically, drastically, drastically lower rates of homicide by firearm than the U.S.
That logic is the same as saying that just because you didn’t eat the lion, the lion won’t eat you. Ridiculous. Where do the criminals get their guns? You don’t even know!
With all of this violence, wouldn’t you want the right to be able to protect yourself definitively? Why would you not want to carry in any of those violent places? What is it really that you are afraid of?
With all of this violence, wouldn’t you want the right to be able to protect yourself definitively? Why would you not want to carry in any of those violent places? What is it really that you are afraid of?