Vermont is going Down

Status
Not open for further replies.

nhcruffler

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
193
Location
Vermont
A week ago I was glad that my state of Vermont had some of the most liberal gun laws in the land. That all changed last Friday when the House of Reps passed S.55. This bill is now being wrung out in the state Senate where it has a majority of support. S.55 will raise the age to purchase a firearm to 20yrs old, ban bump stocks and limit handgun mags to 15 and rifle mags to 10 rounds.They wanted to add an assault rifle ban but thankfully that did not happen , this time around.
This is pretty much a done deal with mag limit actually being the most debated. Our own State AT says the possession would be very difficult or impossible to enforce. They graciously will allow us to keep the ones we have so proving that I bought that mag before the ban would be next to impossible.
I am 55 years old and can say that the USA is changing. Buy your guns and accessories before the anti gunners strike suddenly in your states legislature.
Burke
 
limit handgun mags to 15 and rifle mags to 10 rounds
I don't understand this 10-round rifle mag limit. The smallest regularly-available mag for many rifles is 20 rounds (15 rounds for an M1 carbine). Originally, Colt AR-15's were sold to the public with magazines limited to 5 rounds, but that was with an easily-removable spacer. Anything less than 20 rounds is unreasonable on its face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
I am 55 years old and can say that the USA is changing. Buy your guns and accessories before the anti gunners strike suddenly in your states legislature.
Yes.There's going to be an avalanche of antigun legislation in Virginia after the next election.
 
I don't understand this 10-round rifle mag limit. The smallest regularly-available mag for many rifles is 20 rounds (15 rounds for an M1 carbine). Originally, Colt AR-15's were sold to the public with magazines limited to 5 rounds, but that was with an easily-removable spacer. Anything less than 20 rounds is unreasonable on its face.
Reason has nothing to do with it.
 
Wow! 10 Rd rifle mags well perhaps they are thinking what the FL nut had in his rifle...10rounders...
Arbitrary and capricious comes to mind. Also, if there is something wrong with the prohibited item being tethered to a date isn't the burden of proof upon the state?

What I would do is, now, take pictures of your stuff. Also good for insurance purposes, fire theft etc.

Good luck in your upper house:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
I re-read my post and realized that I left out the worst part. NICS checks for private transfers. We have been doing private transfers for ever but the state feels they need to end that. They say they are trying to keep us safe. Strange thing is it seems more Vermonters are shot , in Vermont ,by the police than by criminals.
 
A week ago I was glad that my state of Vermont had some of the most liberal gun laws in the land. That all changed last Friday when the House of Reps passed S.55. This bill is now being wrung out in the state Senate where it has a majority of support. S.55 will raise the age to purchase a firearm to 20yrs old, ban bump stocks and limit handgun mags to 15 and rifle mags to 10 rounds.They wanted to add an assault rifle ban but thankfully that did not happen , this time around.
This is pretty much a done deal with mag limit actually being the most debated. Our own State AT says the possession would be very difficult or impossible to enforce. They graciously will allow us to keep the ones we have so proving that I bought that mag before the ban would be next to impossible.
I am 55 years old and can say that the USA is changing. Buy your guns and accessories before the anti gunners strike suddenly in your states legislature.
Burke
I'm sorry to hear that. As a fellow Vermonter, 1974-2004, it seems the common sense politicians are dying off.
 
Mayor, Governor turned Representative and now Senator is a member of the Socialist Party. I've always wondered about those yankees.
 
Better hope they do not gain enough traction to overturn the Vermont State Constitution down the road.
 
As Vermont has the lowest murder rate per 100,000 in the whole of the United States. This S55 seems a little like putting the cart before the horse. This is your elected officials making laws just because they can.
 
I consider VT my home state, as I did much "growing up" there. It saddens me to see the state going down this path. But then again, this is also the same state who thought Bernie Sanders was a good politician. I bought many firearms from Henry Parro in Waterbury, and shops like his are hard to come by anywhere.
 
Um, speaking of the Vermont State Constitution, doesn't it place limits on legislative issues concerning firearms?
 
Vermont State Constitution: https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/constitution-of-the-state-of-vermont/

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
New England down through New Jersey has been the worst for firearms long before California started jumping on the bandwagon and trying to outdo them. Vermont struck me as odd, freedom in a sea of authoritarian government, often at the top in the nation. Now it begins its assimilation.


Government's natural tendency has always been to limit people to arms less powerful than the security forces it employs, less than its standing army. It needs to always have those employed to carry its orders out able to trump the population with less manpower because it can never match the manpower of the people. The founders created the 2nd to thwart exactly that and insure the whole people controlled the nation.
It really only worked until the civil war though.
That only works when the population trusts itself though, and why who you let into the nation and who is part of your population and what beliefs and values they hold matter.
Once the population distrusts and fears itself of course government seizes on the opportunity to do what they always have wanted all along, bring the level of civilian arms down beneath the level of the security forces and centralize power.
 
Last edited:
This is bad and I am very sorry to hear it. I don't believe for one minute that the majority of Vermont people support these measures. Some political leaders in Vermont should be looking at another profession next election.


PS Vermont is THE most gun friendly state in the nation. I sure hope it stays that way.
 
Last edited:
New England down through New Jersey has been the worst for firearms long before California started jumping on the bandwagon and trying to outdo them.

Explain "the worst" and "long before"; half of New England has Constitutional Carry.

If you had instead said Southern New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts) from 1993 onwards, then I would tend to agree, but things didn't get bad until SB1160 was passed in Connecticut in 2013 -- 24 years after California started the bandwagon.
 
Perhaps VT Scott can run for US Senate like FL Scott

Think of the advertisement possibilitieso_O
 
I note with interest that there appears to be an interesting problem with the UBC language in S.55-

The bill states:

§ 4019(c)(3) "A licensed dealer may charge a reasonable fee to facilitate the transfer of a firearm between a proposed transferor and a proposed transferee pursuant to this section."

The bill does not state from whom the dealer is entitled to collect this fee. I suggest that since the state is requiring this action, the state should pay, and dealers should invoice the state directly, then sue when they don't pay. One would have a good argument that this is the proper course, as forcing the buyer or seller to pay the fee represents an extremely regressive tax on the transfer of a firearm that unreasonably burdens the individual right to bear arms granted by the state constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Vermont in the early 20th century.

My biggest problem with the bill was raising the purchase age to 21. That was blatantly unconstitutional, given a rational reading of the 16th Article of the Vermont Constitution and the text of SCV's decision in State v. Rosenthal (1903). The final version appears to have fixed this by allowing purchases by anyone under 21 who has completed the state hunter's safety course.

I still hate this law. It's largely unenforceable, and won't do a damned thing to improve public safety, but it does appear to be minimally constitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top