By a vote of 10 to three, the council instructed the city’s charter change committee to draft language barring the possession of such guns and ammunition in Burlington and calling for their “immediate seizure by the police.”
The vote was merely a first step in a long process that would require yet another vote by the council, public hearings, a referendum and, ultimately, a vote in the legislature to change the city’s charter. Nevertheless, to the nearly 100 Vermonters who showed up to the meeting — nearly all men and many wearing camouflage or blaze orange — the proposal was clearly received as an affront to their right to bear arms.
“There’s no excuse why we have this ordinance here other than to politicize something that’s a knee-jerk reaction,” said Burlington resident Michael McGarghan, one of 25 members of the public who spoke out against the proposal during the meeting. “I’m really disgusted that I had to come here tonight and take time out to talk about this.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Yes, let’s make law abiding citizens appear to be illicit criminals and gloss over the mental health issues that have been at play in every one of the shootings. How about elected officials uphold the oath to protect the law of the land to the best of their ability? How about a focus on proper monitoring of the mentally ill and medicated people in our society – including making sure those who are on powerful medications known for substance induced psychosis (nearly all antidepressants) are properly supervised rather than prescribed and released into society as cured? All of the alleged shooters in every incident have been shown to be under the influence of psychosis inducing substances. The media still hasn’t investigated this in the most recent event – even though multiple neighbors stated in their interviews that the alleged shooter took medications.
Apart from anything else, it doesn’t seem terribly clear right now whether the city would even have the constitutional authority to pass this sort of ban. It’s a very current litigation issue, but I don’t think the city has the finances to get involved in that litigation.
The media CAN’T investigate the psychotropic drug elements or Mental/Behavioral issues to these massacre stories because these defendents HIPAA “privacy rights” apparently trump the once guaranteed rights of the 2nd Amendment that responsible and law abiding gun owners used to enjoy. It’s A-OK with decades of Liberal knee-jerk “feel good” reaction legislation to restrict and violate the rights of said responsible and otherwise law abiding gun owners but it’s NOT OK to restrict or violate the doctor-patient “Privacy” privilege of a mass murderer?
Moonbats.
This will never fly. See below :
§ 2295. Authority of municipal and county governments to regulate firearms, ammunition, hunting, fishing and trapping
Except
as otherwise provided by law, no town, city or incorporated village, by
ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate
hunting, fishing and trapping or the possession, ownership,
transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or
registration of traps, firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or
ammunition. This section shall not limit the powers conferred upon a
town, city or incorporated village under section 2291(8) of this title.
The provisions of this section shall supersede any inconsistent
provisions of a municipal charter. (Added 1987, No. 178 (Adj. Sess.),
eff. May 9, 1988.)
Section (8) states:
(8)
To regulate or prohibit the use or discharge, but not possession of,
firearms within the municipality or specified portions thereof, provided
that an ordinance adopted under this subdivision shall be consistent
with section 2295 of this title and shall not prohibit, reduce, or limit
discharge at any existing sport shooting range, as that term is defined
in 10 V.S.A. § 5227.
I don’t think the city can afford this kind of law suit, all the bad press it will raise not even mentioning the 2nd amendment.