S.131 has passed its second reading in the Senate on a straight party-line vote of 17-12 (with one Republican absent) after being voted out of Senate Government Operations Wednesday 3-2.
There will be a third reading and vote tomorrow after a brief and perfunctory review by the Senate Judiciary committee, but in the Senate: The Majority will win despite any logic to the contrary.
Several conservative Senators did an outstanding job of asking pointed questions concerning the legality of the bill as well as attempting to have the majority understand the basic point that self-defense is a primary concern for many Vermonters (especially when they may have to be in a municipality with a very serious violent crime problem), but it was to no avail. Majority rules.
People who obey the law are NOT causing Burlington's problems.
So: To make some feel safer, we need to disarm those who will obey the law!
As was pointed out, when laws are passed most law-abiding people will comply. This however sets aside the fact that criminals will never comply, with the end result being that honest citizens will be forced to decide between being a criminal and insuring their means of self-defense, or becoming an easy target.
33% of Burlington voters voted on this issue. 86.65% of those who voted wanted no guns in bars. Over 19,000 people, perhaps fed up with how Burlington is run in general or were never informed of the scope of this change, never voted (66%).
Did the voters of Burlington who voted, or those that chose not to vote, understand that this was MORE than just guns in bars? Did they know it would encompass hotels, restaurants and their parking lots?
Did they understand the implications of embracing an ordinance that will, in our humble opinion after careful consideration, be unconstitutional?
Did they consider the situation of a hapless traveler? Someone who, god-forbid, has a legal firearm in their possession for whatever legal purpose; they decide to stay the night in a Burlington hotel that has a liquor license: That they would become a criminal? Even when they never set foot in the hotel bar or had anything whatsoever to drink?
Did they think about the effect a patchwork of differing gun laws would have as a Vermonter travels thru different municipalities?
It is truly ludicrous to think that such a law, without requiring the equipment, staff and intrusions of bag searches will keep anyone safe inside.
We would be, as one Senator said, "creating a soft target."
Our fight for the Preemption Statute and our 2nd Amendment rights will continue - failure is just not an option - and we thank you for your continued support.
If you like what you read and what we do: Please consider giving us a
donation -
Help US Help YOU!
Yours in Freedom and Liberty -
