That’s because, like any change to the city’s charter, all three measures would require affirmative votes by the legislature and the signature of Gov. Peter Shumlin. And while Vermont lawmakers have studiously avoided any debate of gun-related matters since a mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school 14 months ago, Shumlin has made perfectly clear that he opposes new gun regulations of any kind.
So what would happen if Burlingtonians approve the measures, which would ban guns from bars, require them to be locked when stored and allow the police to confiscate them from those suspected of domestic abuse?
According to Rep. Donna Sweaney (D-Windsor), who chairs the House Government Operations Committee, any of the three proposals that garner a majority vote on Town Meeting Day next Tuesday would be reviewed by the attorney general’s office and then the secretary of state’s office. After being introduced in the House by a local lawmaker, they would likely land in her committee.
Would lawmakers vote on the charter changes based upon the merits of the proposals — or would they respect the outcome of a local vote?
“We typically try to respect the local decision,” Sweaney said Wednesday. “Although we have refused a couple where there were serious process issues or ambiguity in the language.”
No matter what, she says, “I think we would have a lot of discussion about it, definitely, if it comes. We’ll have to take a lot of testimony and there will be a lot of discussion about it.”
As for Shumlin, who earned a 92 percent rating from the National Rifle Association two years ago and opposes any new state gun laws, the question appears more difficult to answer. If both houses of the legislature were to vote in favor of allowing Burlington to change its charter, the governor would have to decide whether to make use of his veto pen.
“You know how I feel about [gun laws] and I don’t need to restate it, because there’s been absolutely no change in what I’ve always told you,” Shumlin said at a Montpelier press conference Wednesday. “What I do know is that I am a big believer in local control, and I believe that people should make their decisions locally. I’m not going to speculate on what decisions [Burlington voters] might make, because I don’t want to influence those decisions. Obviously, if in fact a bill comes to my desk, I’d be happy to talk about it at that time.”
So how exactly would he reconcile those two competing views — opposition to new gun laws and support for local control — if Burlingtonians were to back the charter changes?
“I’m supportive of local control,” he said. “I didn’t say that I agreed with Burlington on this issue, so I’m going to let local control do its work and see what comes out.”
Pressed again by the Burlington Free Press‘ Terri Hallenbeck about whether, generally speaking, the legislature should approve a charter change favored by locals, Shumlin said that Vermont’s founders “wisely set up our charter system… so that local control makes one judgment and then the legislature and the governor have the job of asking: ‘Does this make sense in light of all the other communities across Vermont?'”
“So,” he concluded, “we’ll do our job if we need to, but I’m not going to speculate on whether we’ll have to weigh it because I don’t know whether it’s going to pass, and I don’t want to influence that.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Stop saying “banning guns from bars”. It bans guns from the property of any place that serves alcohol. You can’t even leave your gun in your car in the parking lot of a restaurant which serves beer or wine. If you go out to dinner – whether you drink or not – you legally have to leave your means with which to defend yourself from the rising drug related crimes, locked up home. Lotta good it does you there eh? How does a “locked and stored” firearm protect you when someone breaks into your home or attacks you? And who is this going to stop? Criminal don’t obey laws and that’s why there are Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing your right to bear arms.
I’ll keep this simple folks. Vote NO on 6, 7, and 8.
If you believe in local control, you should support Burlington’s right to create its own unique gun laws, but they need to be reasonable and effective – giving police the right to confiscate arms in domestic abuse situations could be done with respect and fairness for both parties
By the way – is that a bobcat you shot, Mike?
local control is fine for setting the price of parking tickets, but not for things that can criminalize citizens whose actions are perfectly legal one town over.
Timothy what you missed to realize on the confiscation charter change but was pointed out by Aki Soga of the BFP- http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20140223/OPINION01/302230009/1006/OPINION/Voice-Free-Press-Where-s-due-process-
It is a due process issue not a 2nd Amendment issue. No gov’t entity can confiscate property without a court order, thus why in VT there is a very long process to confiscate vehicles from DUI suspects.
These Charter changes deal with state law exemptions, City of Burlington wants to be exempt from “Sportsmans Bill of Right Law”. No town or city has state law exemption in its charter. This starts the state down a slippery slope. E.G.:
-Town A wants a charter change exempting it from Sales Tax
-Town B wants a charter change exempting it from ACT 250
-Town C wants a charter change exempting it from Same Sex Marriage
-Town D wants a charter change exempting its citizens from Income tax ….. and so on.
IF they allow Article 16 to be modified into something other than the very clear statement originally used (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State”), that means that other aspects of the State Constitution can also be modified by local legislation.
Consistency of treatment (fairness by the State Legislature in the application of the law) and precedent will dictate that such matters as Article 1 (prohibiting slavery), Article 3 (freedom of religion), Article 13 (freedom of speech and of the press), and Article 20 (right to assembly & petition); can also be modified.
Furthermore, not only would the State Legislature be modifying Article 16, but also Article 1. For Article 1 states: “That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property”. It states we have an inherent and unalienable right to defend our life & liberty, as well as to protect our property. I don’t think it could be any more clear.
http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html