Vermont to impose UBCs, mag limits, 21 age requirement

[AlexanderA]

Universal Background checks = registration = confiscation.

The way UBC's are being implemented, it's a boon for FFL's. They get a transfer fee for essentially doing nothing.

Anything that involves FFL's is de facto registration.

There are ways to have background checks without involving FFL's. Yet such alternatives are not being discussed, because the pro-gun side has chosen stonewall opposition rather than creative input. When the handwriting is on the wall you have to be flexible.

 

[toivo]

No one batted an eye when they increased the drinking age and put in new rules for them about driving.

I grew up in New York State when the drinking age was 18. I was 17 when the voting age was lowered to 18, so when I turned 18, I was able to drink AND vote. Hallelujah!

In 1985, NY raised the drinking age to 21, under Federal pressure. Some wise soul at the time opined that "If you're able to vote and you sit back and let them remove your other rights, you deserve what you get." Rings true today too.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Yet another reason to never go to Vermont (as if I ever planned to in the first place).

 

[AlexanderA]

Yet another reason to never go to Vermont (as if I ever planned to in the first place).

Vermont generally is a nice place.

If you're going to let the gun laws dictate your tourism destinations, you're going to find your choices increasingly limited. Most tourist destinations in the world, including those in Europe, have far stricter gun laws than even the strictest U.S. states. Even N.Y. is like an oasis of freedom compared to the U.K. So what are you going to do? Cross every place off your list that is stricter than, say, Texas?

After all, you're a tourist. You don't have to live there.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The way UBC's are being implemented, it's a boon for FFL's. They get a transfer fee for essentially doing nothing.

Yeah, that's it

It's so profitable that many of us FFLs out here refuse to do private transfers. I'll do them, but on a very limited basis. On average, between waiting on parties, instructing on 4473, waiting on CBI, doing the paperwork on my end, there's not less than 40 minutes involved. In theory, it's <10 min worth of work. In reality, you can't get anything else done while you have two or more people meandering around the shop, asking questions, distracting in general. $20 for 2/3 hour is a complete waste of my time. Might seem like good money to someone who punches a time clock, but running a business is a whole 'nother animal.

 

[BigDinVT]

That mag ban grandfathers magazines possessed on the date of enactment. The Vermont legislators backtracked on a blanket mag ban, as well as an AWB. Because of the grandfather provision, the mag ban is completely toothless going forward. Anything could be a "preban" mag.

It does, however prohibit the sale of pistol (15+ Rd) and rifle (10+ Rd) magazines in Vermont. This adversely impacts Gun Shops with an existing inventory. I've heard they would have until October to liquidate their stock. Some folks have also mentioned that some manufacturers (Magpul for one) applies a date code to their magazines. Theoretically LE could use that code to determine if the magazine was manufactured after the ban's effective date. Of course that begs the question: how does the state intend to enforce the ban?

There are a lot of flaws with the whole S.55 that the anti's never thought through simply because of ignorance. For example, requiring a NICS check on P2P sales will never stop second market (e.g. "parking lot") firearms transactions. Another example is the minimum age hike. It prohibits only the sale; not the possession for persons under 21. My son already has a tidy collection of rifles due to some very generous parents.

In reality what has happened in Vermont is the beginning of incrementalism - the camel's nose under the tent. Some have already mentioned this. The firearms prohibition & confiscation crowd are patient and determined. They'll take another run at a full AWB within the next few years.

Two centuries of tradition are gone.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Of course that begs the question: how does the state intend to enforce the ban?

Here, they don't. The Colorado Sheriffs' Association announced that they have no intention of enforcing the law. They don't have the manpower or funds (or the inclination) to drive around to shooting ranges checking date codes on magazines.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

As far as gun control goes, this isn't terrible.

-Hi cap ban: sucks.

-UBC: sucks in theory but toothless.

-Raising the gun purchasing age to 21: I personally don't mind it, but the two-tiered legal adulthood system we run in this country is stupid and full of contradictions. Also, people here have mentioned how the military will give a full auto M4 to any 18 year old who signs up (and they do), but they don't really trust them with those guns either. A lot of times, the rifles are left under lock and key.

-Bump stocks: those were always a ban waiting to happen anyway.

In general, it looks like they just went for the low-hanging fruit on this one and went with laws that don't make a huge difference - the hi-cap ban is the only one that really hurts IMO. I was expecting it to be something like a one-feature AWB, ammo tax, ban on out-of-state transfers, etc - those would suck a lot more.

 

[RPZ]

The way UBC's are being implemented, it's a boon for FFL's. They get a transfer fee for essentially doing nothing.

Anything that involves FFL's is de facto registration.

There are ways to have background checks without involving FFL's. Yet such alternatives are not being discussed, because the pro-gun side has chosen stonewall opposition rather than creative input. When the handwriting is on the wall you have to be flexible.

Being flexible got us from where we stood the 1920s to where we are now.

 

[RETG]

Vermont generally is a nice place.

If you're going to let the gun laws dictate your tourism destinations, you're going to find your choices increasingly limited. Most tourist destinations in the world, including those in Europe, have far stricter gun laws than even the strictest U.S. states. Even N.Y. is like an oasis of freedom compared to the U.K. So what are you going to do? Cross every place off your list that is stricter than, say, Texas?

After all, you're a tourist. You don't have to live there.

Texas is the only gun friendly state? Don't think so; quite a few friendlier states in the south and west! However I know a lot of people who plan vacations to states that are gun friendly.

 

[danez71]

Yeah, that's it

It's so profitable that many of us FFLs out here refuse to do private transfers. I'll do them, but on a very limited basis. On average, between waiting on parties, instructing on 4473, waiting on CBI, doing the paperwork on my end, there's not less than 40 minutes involved. In theory, it's <10 min worth of work. In reality, you can't get anything else done while you have two or more people meandering around the shop, asking questions, distracting in general. $20 for 2/3 hour is a complete waste of my time. Might seem like good money to someone who punches a time clock, but running a business is a whole 'nother animal.

I'll 2nd this and also say it's probably an under estimate on time at least in CA.

In CA for PPT, is about $35 of which the FFL gets about $20.

Buyer fills out 4473.
Both fill out PPT paperwork.
FFL enters data into CalDOJ (DROS) system.
Copies DL of both
Copies fire arm certificate ( permit) of buyer and then checks system to make sure it hasn't been revoked.
I think finger prints buyer just like an FFL sale.
I'm sure I'm missing some things in there
(The place I use also has someone do a quick check on the 4473; 2nd set of eyes)

Then 10 day wait...
Has to deal with buyer again when picking up....
Verify lock is present.
Signing more forms about storage and lock.
More forms about actually picking it up and not being in violation of anything on 4473 since the 10 day wait.
Safety demonstration.
I'm sure I'm missing something in there too.

Of course there is small talk during all that... they need to friendly and answer what ever question someone throws out about the current sales or other products and at least make eye contact nod their head abut what ever stupid politician or law comments are tossed around...

Not a money maker at all for the FFL store.

It's things like that is partly why Im willing to pay a little extra rather than shop for absolute lowest price online for other gun related stuff.

A FFL store will simply go out of business if they stock product and only do PPTs.

The store I use is predominantly fishing and guns. They can't stay alive by stocking shelves and only selling fishing licenses and doing PPTs.


Fewer stores mean less accessibility for me and future generations.

 

[readyeddy]

I don't feel any resentment against Vermont. It sounds like they are fighting the good fight and have done their best to limit the gun restrictions that were originally proposed.

 

[CapnMac]

There are ways to have background checks without involving FFL's

Yeah, BINS would work, and far better.
But, that's not the goal. The goal is people control. Anything that does not lead to registration will be opposed politically.

"They" want a population that has to supplicate to be granted their Rights; a society where Rights are only granted to those who are registered, licensed, controlled.
You will have to get, and keep, your "Citizen's Rights Card" to be one of "the People" who have a right to not suffer unreasonable search and siezure; to not give incriminating evidence; to have a jury of your peers in your home jurisdiction, to practice the religion of your choice, to freely assemble, to seek redress of grievances, and so on. Naturally, this will not include keeping or bearing arms, that will be reserved to the standing army and the Praetorian Guards which will arise with it.

 

[Officers'Wife]

As far as gun control goes, this isn't terrible.

-Hi cap ban: sucks.

-UBC: sucks in theory but toothless.

-Raising the gun purchasing age to 21: I personally don't mind it, but the two-tiered legal adulthood system we run in this country is stupid and full of contradictions. Also, people here have mentioned how the military will give a full auto M4 to any 18 year old who signs up (and they do), but they don't really trust them with those guns either. A lot of times, the rifles are left under lock and key.

-Bump stocks: those were always a ban waiting to happen anyway.

In general, it looks like they just went for the low-hanging fruit on this one and went with laws that don't make a huge difference - the hi-cap ban is the only one that really hurts IMO. I was expecting it to be something like a one-feature AWB, ammo tax, ban on out-of-state transfers, etc - those would suck a lot more.

At the risk of sounding obstinate... You seem pretty cavalier on the suppression of rights. Since you seem to believe the law is "not too bad" would you be kind enough to explain to me what the benefit to the peace and dignity of that state they serve?

 

[CapnMac]

A lot of times, the rifles are left under lock and key.

Nope, it's all of the time in CONUS.
Deployed is different, but still highly restricted.
It's counter-intuitive, but our standing army is the least armed population extant.
That's what made the Ft Hood shooting so horrendous. The only armed personnel on a CONUS base are the security contractors, who tend to be few and far between.
Even at Basic (and AIT, if they go) there's very little time firing weapons

 

[AlexanderA]

Yeah, BINS would work, and far better.
But, that's not the goal. The goal is people control. Anything that does not lead to registration will be opposed politically.

We may realize that, but most voters don't. To most voters, gun control is simply about removing guns from the irresponsible, or making guns hard to get. They don't have a vested interest, so removing guns is some other guy's problem.

If the pro-gun side proposed a non-registration background check system (and we've discussed various ways in which this could be done), it would put the antigunners in a tough spot. They would have to justify why they needed a backdoor registration system, and would inevitably have to confess that their end goal was confiscation. Frank confiscation doesn't have much political support. That's why the antigunners are so vague about exactly what they intend to do.

"They" want a population that has to supplicate to be granted their Rights; a society where Rights are only granted to those who are registered, licensed, controlled.

I've heard it said elsewhere that "gun control" is the means by which the plutocrats and the elites are trying to disarm the working class. Seen in that light, it's easy to see why the traditional Marxist Left would be opposed to gun control. The so-called "leftists" that are pushing gun control are not really leftists at all. Is Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire plutocrat, a "leftist"? Gimme a break.

 

[anymanusa]

Impose is the operative word.

Screw them. Impose yourself into the local government.

 

[BigDinVT]

Vermont will become like all the rest of the New England states.

The same thing is happening on the west coast. Blue from Mexico to Canada. It's like some kind of communicable disease that nobody has a cure for.

Sorry, no. New Hampshire has gone the other way. In 2017 Gov. Sununu signed Constitutional Carry into law and NH has no "assault" weapons ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Hampshire

Maine, I believe, has also enacted Constitutional Carry and has no semiautomatic rifle ban that I can find.

Ironic, Vermont is said to be the source of the term "Constitutional Carry". Vermont seems to be going the wrong way when other states are relaxing firearms restrictions.

 

[AlexanderA]

New Hampshire has gone the other way.

That's what makes the Vermont mag ban so unworkable. Vermont residents can just go across the border into N. H. and buy all the over-10-round mags they want, and there's no way to identify the mags as post-ban.

All the antis got in Vermont was a "symbolic" victory.

 

[wanderinwalker]

Vermont will become like all the rest of the New England states.

The same thing is happening on the west coast. Blue from Mexico to Canada. It's like some kind of communicable disease that nobody has a cure for.

Ummm... New Hampshire is still pretty freedom loving. Maine too. I actually told a Massachusetts police officer (politely), anything he can buy and possess with his badge in MA, can be legally purchased and possessed by a regular citizen on the northern side of the MA/NH line. It got me a look, but got my point across: NH isn't exactly known as a hive of violence and criminal mischief.

As for VT, I'm saddened by the erosion of rights to my friends on the other side of the river. But unless I'm mistaken, it looks like Constitutional Carry is still on the table. And carrying an AR-15 into the state still isn't an automatic Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Pass Go. So I can still visit Brattleboro, Putney, Bellows Falls and other towns in my travels without worrying about what's in my vehicle on that day.

 

[pharmer]

If the pro-gun side proposed a non-registration background check system (and we've discussed various ways in which this could be done), it would put the antigunners in a tough spot.

Here in Florida we have had exactly that since 1991. I called the 800 number and the FDLE got the name, birthdate, type of firearm. Proceed or not with approval # that went on the 4473. Law was passed that the info could not be stored but I'm not believing that. Worked well and smoothly, had zero effect on crime. Between '91 and surrender of FFL in '95 I never had a denial. None of this effluent addresses crime and causes. Joe

 

[Officers'Wife]

Just for giggles and grins let's do one of my late uncle's "thought experiments." Given that the age for the "unorganized militia" begins at 18 how is the denial of personal arms to those militia members under the age of 21 not in direct violation of the government's duty to maintain a "well regulated" (i.e. armed and familiar with their weapon) militia? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[AlexanderA]

Just for giggles and grins let's do one of my late uncle's "thought experiments." Given that the age for the "unorganized militia" begins at 18 how is the denial of personal arms to those militia members under the age of 21 not in direct violation of the government's duty to maintain a "well regulated" (i.e. armed and familiar with their weapon) militia? Inquiring minds want to know.

Because Justice Scalia, writing in the Heller case, ruled that membership in the militia has nothing to do with the RKBA. At the time, gun people applauded this. Now they're learning better.

 

[AlexanderA]

Here in Florida we have had exactly that since 1991. I called the 800 number and the FDLE got the name, birthdate, type of firearm. Proceed or not with approval # that went on the 4473. Law was passed that the info could not be stored but I'm not believing that. Worked well and smoothly, had zero effect on crime. Between '91 and surrender of FFL in '95 I never had a denial. None of this effluent addresses crime and causes. Joe

Anything involving FFL's and Form 4473's means de facto registration. What I'm suggesting is a background check system that would bypass FFL's and not include any information on the gun itself. An individual (potential buyer) would log into a NICS online portal and get a clearance number for himself. Then he would give this number to another individual (gun seller) who would verify it at the NICS portal. The transaction would proceed with no record of the gun being kept. Would this satisfy the antigunners? No. But it would be plausible to a lot of centrist voters, who want "something" to be done on UBC's.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Sorry, no. New Hampshire has gone the other way. In 2017 Gov. Sununu signed Constitutional Carry into law and NH has no "assault" weapons ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Hampshire

Maine, I believe, has also enacted Constitutional Carry and has no semiautomatic rifle ban that I can find.

Ironic, Vermont is said to be the source of the term "Constitutional Carry". Vermont seems to be going the wrong way when other states are relaxing firearms restrictions.

I'm not so sure how you could think that a state that passed constitutional carry won't ban semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines. The anti-gun folks lost the handgun battle a long time ago and people that have never fired a gun in their lives are seeking training and buying hand guns. It isn't a surprise to me that a state would just get rid of the permitting process altogether because when you do a cost/benefit analysis it makes absolutely no sense. Lots of states are coming to that conclusion.

We don't have a semi-auto/mag ban here either, but we will because this is a blue state now. All it takes is a few GOP legislators to vote for common sense gun control and you just lost your AR and mags.

The New England states aren't exactly a hot bed of conservatives.