Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Vermont Senate Bill S.30

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

Bernard --

The Senate Democratic Caucus took up the matter of gun control bill S.30, which has been the subject of several hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee.
The author of the bill, Senator Phil Baruth, took the matter of S.30 to the caucus of his party, to pitch his bad bill to the entire body of Senate Democrats.
You can hear the S.30 discussion which starts at the beginning of the Senate Democratic Caucus meeting and runs for 20-25 minutes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfkxuwqHBo0
 
Senator Baruth made several factual errors in his statements on S.30 in relation of the Unlawful Trespass law.
 
* An employee is not required to give "notice of trespass" to a person prior to calling the police.  The employee can call the police and in the presence of
the police, can give "notice of trespass."  If the person leaves the property and leaves the firearm in their vehicle, no charges will be brought.  If they
refuse to leave or return with the firearm, they can be taken into police custody and removed from the property.   See 13 V.S.A. Section 3705 below.
 
* He proclaims citizens might well say they cannot be given "notice of trespass" claiming a Second Amendment defense in the Unlawful Trespass law.
A citizen with a firearm cannot assert they have "lawful authority" which refers to having claim to the property.  Lawful authority would be legal authority 
one would have by owning the property or a leave or rental contract.  
You have a right to freedom of expression. That doesn't mean you cannot be given "notice of trespass" if you start marching around a supermarket with a sign proclaiming 
"Agree with me on my Cause."  By Senator Baruth's statement a person might claim a legal defense against prosecution under the Unlawful Trespass statute because of 
the First Amendment right of "freedom of expression"  If they refuse to leave they can still claim such a right, as they are sitting handcuffed in the backseat of a police cruiser.
 
They can also explain to the judge at their arraignment all about their inaccurate perception of unlimited "freedom of expression" on private property.  Good Luck!
 
(Cite as: 13 V.S.A. § 3705)
  • § 3705. Unlawful trespass(A) actual communication by the person in lawful possession or his or her agent or by a law enforcement officer acting on behalf of such person or his or her agent;(C) in the case of abandoned property:(ii) actual communication by a law enforcement officer.(A) real property on which there is a vacant structure that for the previous 60 days has been continuously unoccupied by a person with the legal right to occupy it and with respect to which the municipality has by first-class mail to the owner's last known address provided the owner with notice and an opportunity to be heard; and(ii) one or more utility services have been disconnected; or(b) Prosecutions for offenses under subsection (a) of this section shall be commenced within 60 days following the commission of the offense and not thereafter.(d) A person who enters a dwelling house, whether or not a person is actually present, knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so shall be imprisoned for not more than three years or fined not more than $2,000.00, or both.
  • (e) A law enforcement officer shall not be prosecuted under subsection (a) of this section if he or she is authorized to serve civil or criminal process, including citations, summons, subpoenas, warrants, and other court orders, and the scope of his or her entrance onto the land or place of another is no more than necessary to effectuate the service of process. (Added 1969, No. 156 (Adj. Sess.); amended 1971, No. 229 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; 1973, No. 109, § 7; 1979, No. 153 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; 1981, No. 223 (Adj. Sess.), §§ 17, 23; 2013, No. 49, § 3; 2013, No. 75, § 21.)
  • (c) A person who enters a building other than a residence, whose access is normally locked, whether or not the access is actually locked, or a residence in violation of an order of any court of competent jurisdiction in this State shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined not more than $500.00, or both.
  • (B) a railroad car that for the previous 60 days has been unmoved and unoccupied by a person with the legal right to occupy it.
  • (i) property taxes have been delinquent for six months or more; or
  • (2) As used in this subsection, "abandoned property" means:
  • (i) signs or placards, posted by the owner, the owner's agent, or a law enforcement officer, and so designed and situated as to give reasonable notice; or
  • (B) signs or placards so designed and situated as to give reasonable notice; or
  • (a)(1) A person shall be imprisoned for not more than three months or fined not more than $500.00, or both, if, without legal authority or the consent of the person in lawful possession, he or she enters or remains on any land or in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

 

Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
http://www.vtfsc.com/

VT Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs · 454 S Main St, Northfield, VT 05663, United States
This email was sent to sportsmanscluboffranklincounty.clubnews@blogger.com. To stop receiving emails, click here.
You can also keep up with Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs on Facebook.

Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.