A coalition of Vermont gun groups sued the state Wednesday, arguing that newly passed ammunition magazine limits run afoul of the Vermont Constitution.
The plaintiffs — the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association, two sporting goods stores and one gun owner — are being represented by Brady Toensing, vice chair of the Vermont Republican Party, and Cooper & Kirk, a Washington, D.C., law firm that has represented the National Rifle Association in multiple cases.
The suit, filed in Washington Superior Court, came one week after Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed into law sweeping gun legislation to mandate background checks, raise the purchasing age for firearms to 21 and ban bump stocks, in addition to establishing the magazine limits.
The law prohibits Vermonters from buying magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds for rifles and more than 15 rounds for handguns. The gun groups are seeking an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced while the case is argued.
In a written statement, Attorney General T.J. Donovan, a Democrat who supported the new laws, said his office had anticipated the suit. “We are prepared and will vigorously defend Vermont law,” he said.
In a statement of his own, Republican Gov. Phil Scott said, “I’m confident the new law is consistent with the Vermont Constitution and appreciate the Attorney General’s support and commitment in defending State law.”
The lawsuit states that the magazine ban “impermissibly burdens and infringes the fundamental right of law-abiding Vermont citizens to bear arms in their own defense,” a violation of the Vermont Constitution. Article 16 guarantees people the “right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.”
The suit further claims that magazine limits “will make law-abiding Vermont citizens more vulnerable to criminal attack by depriving them of commonly-owned ammunition magazines” — an especially “pernicious” risk given the rural nature of the state.
It uses Revolutionary War hero Ethan Allen and his brother, Ira, to illustrate the state’s long tradition of using firearms “in defense of state and self,” noting that the Green Mountain Boys, led by Ethan Allen, used their own guns to lay claim to Fort Ticonderoga in 1775.
Under the new law, gun stores have until October 1, 2018, to sell off existing inventory, and magazines purchased by that date will remain legal. Vermont gun manufacturers can continue to sell magazines out-of-state, an exemption Toensing helped secure, and high-capacity magazines will be permitted at gun competitions until July 1, 2019.
Despite those carve-outs, the suit suggests that magazine restrictions will reduce participation in firearms competitions, harming the clubs that host them, and cause “significant financial loss” at gun stores, including the plaintiffs, Powderhorn Outdoor Sports Center in Williston and Locust Creek Outfitters in Bethel.
The only individual plaintiff is Leah Stewart, who co-owns Locust Creek Outfitters and, according to the lawsuit, has an AR-15 as well as multiple handguns that use magazines with more than 10 or 15 rounds.
In a statement, Sportsmen’s Club president Chris Bradley expressed confidence that the court would rule in the gun groups’ favor. “Many of the most popular rifles and pistols come standard with magazines in excess of these new limits,” he wrote. “The Vermont Constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms prevents the State from requiring law-abiding Vermonters to defend themselves and their families with sub-standard firearm magazines.”
As of Wednesday, the Sportmen’s Club had raised close to $23,000 for legal expenses on the crowd-funding site GoFundMe.
Sen. Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden), a longtime proponent of gun control, isn’t concerned.
“Anybody who was out in front of the building during the [bill] signing ceremony knows that these are very aggressive people,” he said. “It was a forgone conclusion that they would use the court system in an equally aggressive way, so I can’t say that anybody is surprised. But we had leg[islative] counsel thoroughly review this legislation, as did the governor, and I’m absolutely confident it will pass muster.”
Here’s the court filing:
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
This is great! We as Tax Payers get to spend a lot of Tax Dollars fighting a suit so these people can fire more bullets!
How about a link to the funding page so I can donate?
Article 16 also states, “…standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up…”. Do these Republicans also want to sue the federal government for having an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard?
Why do those whiners think they need such a freaking large capacity magazine? They are so ridiculous.. what did they do before magazines were so large?
Funding page: https://www.gofundme.com/www-vtfsc-com
“what did they do before magazines were so large?”
Presumably nothing since magazines carrying over 10 rounds have been available for literal centuries.
Those of you complaining that “tax dollars” are going to be used to fight this suit didn’t seem to mind all the “tax dollars” used each year there laws were brought up and not passed, which has happened at least for the last 10 years.
I will never understand this peculiarly American obsession with guns. Many thriving democracies around the world are doing quite well without militarizing the citizenry.
If these people who want to arm our teachers and barricade our schools and allow military assault rifles in the streets truly wish for freedom and protection, they need to be fighting for the right to bear drones, nukes, rocket launchers, chemical weapons, and tanks. If you think our freedom is dependent on guns then you need to read up on our government’s military capacity.
As for me, I’ll continue to fight for the right to live in peace, go to school in peace, and enjoy living in a free society that does not require guns to enforce our freedom, it requires our votes.
Penelope,
Name another country that has the same constitution as the U.S. with the same rights and protections. That will answer your questions.
In a statement of his own, Republican Gov. Phil Scott said, I’m confident the new law is consistent with the Vermont Constitution and appreciate the Attorney Generals support and commitment in defending State law.”
While Scott and his minions are busy defending “state law,” the state’s citizens now have to defend Vermont from the state. Scott was one of the worst things to have happened to this state.
I feel embarrassed reading some of these comments.
The bold and arrogant lack of even the most simple understanding of firearms and American history is disgusting. We have people here begging, demanding, for their rights to be slowly strangled because of scary “large capacity magazines”. An unsophisticated google search of “large capacity magazines” would yield that their definition is as accurate as “assault weapons” in so much as a literal rock could be an “assault weapon” if used to carry out assault.
We often point and laugh at the right as a collection of mouth breathing imbeciles, but from where I am standing the clear fools are the ones who actively choose to not understand the topic they fight against.
PENELOPE The United States is not a Democracy, its actually a Republic. Education is key.
Good fight back for your rights
It says right in the Vermont constitution, “Citizens shall have the right to military weaponry, because… uh… You never know when you’re going to be attacked by dozens of terrorists at the same time.”
I have a hard time following the “Alamo mentality” that one needs 30 round magazines to protect oneself from home invasions. Statistics show that with guns in your home, you are much more likely to be killed by a family member than you are from an intruder.
I’m no lawyer, but it’s pretty hard to see how these groups have standing to pursue this litigation. Indeed, it seems a textbook violation of the first 2 general principles stated here and a potential violation of the 3rd as well: “The classic standards are
that usually advanced in legal papers discussing standing are: (1) that the
injury alleged by the plaintiff is imminent; (2) that the alleged injury is
concrete and particularized rather than a general grievance; (3) that it is
likely rather than merely speculative that the alleged injury will be
redressed by a favorable judgment” http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/The%20Doc…
What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand people ?
The quote is from the state’s “Militia Clause,” which distinguishes between two military forces: militia — “the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State,” and standing army. And note the “AND”.
The plaintiffs are not a militia, though they threaten to become a standing army. And they omit the constitutional provision that does apply:
Chap. II., S. XXXIX. [T]he inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl, in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly.
1. To “hunt and fowl” are protected limitations, and gun control is constitutional, both Federal and state.
2. Assault rifles have no legitimate civilian uses, let alone to “hunt and fowl”. They are not protected by the Vermont constitution.
GERO, large capacity magazines have not been around for centuries but years, I do also think the state constitution needs to be updated as back then military weaponry didn’t have large capacity magazines and semi automatic weapons
” The United States is not a Democracy, its actually a Republic. Education is key..
Yes: education is key:
The essence of democracy is elections. The US Constitution stipulates that there shall be elections. The US is a DEMOCRATIC republic.
In addition: it makes no sense to jabber about “rights” in a democracy while at the same time rejecting democracy.
Centuries are composed of years, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The most famous example, a semi automatic air rifle with a 21 round magazine.
Going into the future by another century brings the gatling gun and other advancements with larger capacities.
Try researching a topic before making a fool of yourself.
Chapter DCCXXIX.
_An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators._
Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
[Section I.] _Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention,_ That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges. . . .
Passed July 19, 1776. “Ordinances passed by the Constitutional Convention, June-September, 1776,” _The Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801, Vol. IX, 1776 to 1779_ (Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1903), Edited by Commissioners James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, at 11.
Will Waizenegger:
“Penelope,
Name another country that has the same constitution as the U.S. with the same rights and protections. That will answer your questions.”
Amazing how many gun proponents jabber about a Constitution they’ve never bothered to read:
US Con., Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions.
The gun industry and its propaganda front notwithstanding, there is no “right” to “take up arms” against the gov’t/rule of law.
And see “Shays’s” — under the “Articles of Confederation” — and “Whiskey” rebellion — under the US Constitution AFTER the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment was ratified. The “rebels” were charged with, tried for, and convicted of TREASON and sentenced to death.
Nor is there a “right” to own guns: it is a revocable privilege: if you rob a bank with your legal gun, when sent to prison you will not be allowed to take your legal gun with you. And that “exception” to LaPierre’s loony absolutism is sufficient to demolish the absolute.
Why 30? Because police have a hit rate under 20%
If trained police in situations they need to use a weapon have less than 1 in 5 shots hit the target, normal people in situations they are even less prepared to handle would most likely be even worse.
The statistics also show that this is the safest years we’ve ever had in America. Every single crime is down, and has been going down since before the beginning or end of the assault weapons ban. The CDC says at least 500,000 people’s lives are saved by defensive use of a gun. Not shooting in self defense, just having the gun.
Posted by Cheryl Pariseau on 04/18/2018 at 3:21 PM .
“what did they do before magazines were so large?”
Presumably nothing since magazines carrying over 10 rounds have been available for literal centuries.
______________
For which latter claim you provide not a shred of evidence.
When will you be reading the Vermont constitution for the first time? —
The clause in the VT constitution which speaks of standing armies is the “Militia Clause,” the Militia being “the right of the people to bear arms.”
The Clause exists to govern the MILITIA. A Militia is not an individual. The SOURCES of the Second Amendment were four state constitution Militia Clauses, including VT’s Article XV. It is located in CHAPTER I. of the constitution.
The INDIVIDUAL “right” to own guns, and subjecting of that to regulation — gun control — is in CHAPTER II., at XXXIX.
And serving in the Militia is a DUTY, not a right.
And the Militia is governed and regulated under not only the constitution but also statutes called “Militia Acts”.
And note the first three words of the US Constitution:
“We the people.”
It is not, “We the individual.”
It is not, “I the people.”
It is INARGUABLE that “people” is PLURAL.
Yes: I have an education in law. And I have been researching and studying this very issue for 29 years.
Aaron Ploof:
“definition is as accurate as “assault weapons” in so much as a literal rock could be an “assault weapon” if used to carry out assault.”
1. How many rounds per minute can your “literal rock” shoot?
(Google is your friend: look up “apples and oranges” on your Internet.)
2. In LAW, we use LEGAL dictionaries — not random slop on the Internet of no known provenance.
The reasons gun proponents come up with the most outlandish claims in defense of owning guns are two:
They don’t actually know the history of the US, and the Founders — who engaged in every form of gun control including “gun-grabbing”.
They haven’t any REASONABLE “arguments,” so grab for the hyperbolic nearest their conscious mind. And that is irresponsible.
I suppose it isn’t remarkable that they never listen to themselves — and how absurd and nonsensical their claims — which are invariably NOT backed up with a shred of legitimate EVIDENCE. And that is irresponsible.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.beatles/gUSKQnUw6W4
24 years and you haven’t changed a bit.
Nobody likes a spammer.
A well-tailored suite, being necessary to the sharpness of a fine gentleman, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes, shall not be infringed.
Those rights are natural, the bor simply acknowledged that. They are not limited to that list.
David Boisen:
“What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand people ?”
I understand several things about it, including the fact that it is ripped out of its controlling context: MILITARY forces.
Homework:
Go back and READ the VT “Militia Clause” at Chap. I., XV, which includes that phrase. Read it again and again until you UNDERSTAND it:
That “Militia Clause” distinguishes between TWO forms of MILITARY forces:
1. Militia: the phrase “right of the people to bear arms” is the MILITIA.
2. Standing armies.
It has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.
Then read the securing of the INDIVIDUAL right, at Chap. II., S. XXXIX, which EXPRESSLY stipulates limits thereon, and EXPRESSLY stipulates that the General Assembly can enact FURTHER gun control.
Extra credit: The “Bill of Rights” is not the whole US Constitution. And the whole Constitution is in effect at the same time. READ that portion of the US Constitution which was ratified BEFORE the Bill of Rights was written, ratified, and added.
See in particular these two provisions, which ALSO apply to the Militia:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15.
Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.
Of all of the above, the only RELEVANT legal provision — that which actually applies to an individual “right” — is VT Con., Chap. II, S. XXXIX.
When will the fight for American’s Civil Rights (all of them) end?
If we can all agree that:
1. Self defense against any unlawful attack is a basic human right.
2. That as a basic human right, self defense is and should always be considered a Civil Right of the People and thus the exercise of that right must be immune from restriction, infringement, licensing or taxation by Government at any level.
3. That the Civil Rights of the People are not subject to the approval of the Majority Opinion and belong to every Individual regardless of their social status.
4. That any infringement, restriction, licensing requirements or taxation levied on the free exercise of a Civil Right is a violation of that right.
5. That any law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages the free exercise of any Civil Right is an infringement on that right.
6. That if a law, policy or rule that prohibits or discourages a Citizen from legally acquiring the tools, weapons or means to freely exercise their Civil Rights, then their rights have been infringed.
-Then it follows that those who advocate for the preservation of the right of the People to keep and bear arms are, in fact, Civil Rights advocates. It also follows that those who oppose the right of the People to keep and bear arms are against the People’s civil rights.
We have a word for people who advocate for or try to use the force of law to infringe on the civil rights of others: we call them Bigots.
great to see the legal x-spurts referring to the u.s. bil of rights,. the suit is under the state constitution,. got a feeling thay din’t even know difference,.. chittenden county should be ceded to it’s occupant’s new york,..
b
Joseph Nagarya, I am glad to see you have done your homework and cited the constitution to some of the people who think large magazines have been around for centuries or hundreds of years. They obviously don’t know what a century is and also don’t know what is in the constitution.
I see a lot of people “Interpreting” The Vermont Constitution to suit themselves, and their own beliefs. Maybe, just maybe, we should “Interpret” the Vermont Constitution in the true spirit that it was intended by the men who wrote it. Did the men who wrote this constitution own, possess, or even dream of firearms magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds? Likely not, as the state of the art firearms of their day were of the muzzle loading, single shot variety. However, If one could bring these men back to life, to answer questions about such magazines, It seems likely that they would answer with a strong affirmation that said magazines are indeed permissible, and even desirable for ownership by all persons. These men meant for the people of the state of Vermont to own and possess the latest and best firearms available to them. These men were in the midst of a battle to rid the state of control by oppressive government forces. They intended to pass along to their descendants, the right, and the equipment to do so, in the future if the need should arise. To that end, No thoughtful individual could come to the conclusion that the intent of the Vermont Constitution was to allow only the possession of “Politacally Correct” firearms, magazines, or ammunition. These men meant for the citizens of Vermont, to be protected from subjugation by any government, foreign or domestic.
Yesterday I was not permitted to send a tweet to VT. Governor Phil Scott questioning his statement that by passing gun control legislation limiting what Vermonters can have for a weapon was “doing all he could to protect children in schools”.
Many of us requested gun safety courses, gun competitions, allowing staff to carry, and posting warnings that staff was armed.
I was prohibited from sending this comment in any form, stated in any way. This in violation of the 1st Amendment, Should we be concerned about government’s violations of our rights?
Where we live we can choose what we want to do, or not do; that is our own business. That is freedom.
Don’t mess with it. Mind your own business. The comments here indicate snowflakes abound.
If you want to make schools safer, teach the residents and students to use guns safely, to appreciate them, to become good marksmen, to know to never point a gun at anyone, to learn safe handling and care for a gun. Learn respect for them and their historical importance. The military would appreciate gun savvy kids too, not the flabby milquetoasts they have to choose from now who know nothing about weapons.
Currently, ignorance rules, but we are protected by the Constitutional guarantee that no law will ever trespass upon what a citizen may use as a weapon. It is illegal to do so. We know that, and will follow the Constitution.
If you want safer schools, allow staff to carry; post the grounds to inform others that the school is protected and violators may be injured if they act inappropriately. This would also be more fiscally responsible, not taxing us into poverty to pay for. That is responsibility. No arguments. Is this clear?
If you don’t care about safety in schools, pretend that infringing upon citizen’s rights will protect them. It won’t.
The newly passed gun law in a disgrace to Vermont, and to America. It is shameful and will be overturned.
Headline today, “4 Dead in Shooting at Waffle House in Tenn”: Four customers were also wounded. The carnage would have been much greater except for the heroism of a customer who wrestled the AR-15 away from the shooter. The time has come to place metal detectors at the entrance of every Waffle House in America. Moreover, lets arm all cooks and waitresses so we can better enjoy breakfast.
Gov. Scott missed a good opportunity to unite people of Vermont in keeping our schools & students safe. You have to be naive to think that gun owners aren’t as troubled or concerned about safety in our schools. If he would have only contacted our state’s many firearms clubs & organizations he would have found out about National School Shield. An organization that will help all schools with analyzing potential threats & then design a plan to help prevent school violence, shootings or other problems. This service is offered free by the N.R.A. That may be the reason schools shy away from it. Know this people the N.R.A. is all about safety & always has been. They employ the best of our military as trainers & train police,military & civilians. The Gov. split the state wide open for no reason in signing S-55. Know this,that kid in Florida used 10 round magazines.
Rather than simply allowing staff to carry and also to teach gun safety, which would absolutely keep schools safer without busting the bank….. the very first things the liberal left pushes is to violate the 2nd Amendment, which is out of the question….not going to happen, VT. law or no law. There is no accounting for the mindlessness of this…. unless there is intent to disarm us.
When I was a kid we probably plotted to blow up the school a couple of times a month. We were just being kids and fantasizing about our frustration with the system that hated. The reality was that we were never going to act out violently against our fellow students.
Short of sending swat teams to kick in everyone’s door and confiscate all firearms you are not going to change anything.
We seem to feel that the problems in our society are a result of the guns or the drugs that are available in our society but ignore the real cause of our states dilemma. The politicians are trying to push this idealistic utopia in Vermont and the end result is that most people can barely afford to live and pay their bills.
This new law is great, it will insure that school shooters will leave their 30 round mags at home when they decide to kill students. If bad people followed laws there would be zero shootings, passing more laws will just criminalize the good people, if you cant catch the criminals , just make criminals out of the good people.
most recent shootings were done by PISTOLS, not Large capacity magazines. If highly trained police officers miss most of the time under high stress situations, why can’t I carry the same firearm to defend myself as they do
Funny how ignorant people are when it comes to prevention.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/307
Its amazing how many people havent done any research and attempt to interperate the constitution and bill of rights themselves instead of looking for the information from other readings from the same time by the same people.
Richard Henry Lee: A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselvesand include all men capable of bearing arms. (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
For those that think Large Capacity Magazines are relatively new, Lewis and Clark’s famous rifles they carried on their Journey was the Girandoni Rifle, a 18th Century .46 cal. 20 shot repeating rifle that could fire all of its ammunition within a minute. This is one of many rifles and arms at the time you people have obviously ignored. There are many more that even fired automatic with high round counts, multiple shots with one pull of the trigger. A Few examples to search out: Puckle Gun, Swivel guns, Belton flintlock, PepperBox Revolver, and it wasnt limited to small arms but artillery and warships. Though today explosive, nukes, armored vehicles and destructive devices would fall under other categories but all small arms and their accessories should be unlimited/unregulated.
The more you read into what the Founders actually thought and believed the more you see that they knew weaponry and technological advances were to pass and they felt that the citizen shouldnt be restricted from those advancements. Does the First Amendment not continue on to your phone or Computer? The same should apply to firearms.
The founders WANTED the citizens to be as well armed as the government. Some Quotes from the Founders themselves:
To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776).
“Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” Thomas Paine.
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, (1788).
“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry, American Patriot.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed .”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.
And of course, the capstone of the comments: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Thomas Jefferson.
All laws that are pushing for Gun Control have been proven with statistics and historical data that they do not result in a positive manner. There has never been a single example of working gun control worldwide, every place that has implemented gun control has had a rise of violent crime in other directions and usually at a much higher rate. the few examples like Australia had decreasing numbers before the buyback, meaning the buyback had little positive effect.
None of these unlawful “solutions” do anything more than infringe on those that will follow the law, they will not make anyone safer, they will not change the outcome for school shootings, they will not protect students and anyone that knows anything…anything at all about firearms will see that. Those that pretend to know anything about firearms or history would be shocked and resent these unconstitutional measures. There are many real solutions being voiced, none of which infringes on anyone’s rights and I believe thats most likely why they arent being heard. Feel Good Legislation gives false security and Freedom is Dangerous….those that would give up Freedom for Temporary Security Deserve Neither.