The Legislature returned to the Statehouse this week, with new bills being introduced in both the House and Senate.
Even though Vermont is facing profoundly serious issues that demand their full attention, there are some that still wish to further infringe on firearm rights.
An "Assault Weapons Ban" (AWB) has been introduced in the Senate (S.167), another was submitted into the House (H.604), and both of these would be in addition to an AWB bill submitted last session (H.381). H.381 did not move last year, and as there are now cases before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) dealing with the constitutionality of AWBs (more correctly referred to as Modern Sporting Rifles), it is unlikely that any will move. We will be watching and if there is any serious movement on any of these: Expect the Federation and our allies to call for a massive public response against.
The worst bill we have seen so far is H.606, a bill innocently named as "An act relating to firearm procedures." It contains 5 parts.
Part 1 makes it a Grand Larceny felony to steal a firearm of any value. We currently have little to no concern with that section.
Part 2 has to do with increasing the penalties for 2nd or subsequent offenses for possession of firearms by prohibited persons. Again: Little to no concern by us.
Part 3 has to do with an attempt to align state law to federal law about prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons who have been found by a court to pose a danger to themselves or others because of mental illness. We all know there is a nexus between mental health and violence. We, however, have serious concerns about how a Right that is/was taken away can later be restored.
Part 4 prohibits the possession of machine guns as well as "rapid fire devices" that increase the rate of fire of a firearm. At present, the language of this section appears to be identical to S.160 (just introduced by Senate Pro Tem Phil Baruth), and when we were initially made aware of this coming bill, we understood that this section would be an attempt to address the issue of Glock "switches" or devices which allow for a semi auto Glock to become full auto.
By existing Federal Law: It is illegal to make a fully automatic firearm. If that were what this section would do, we would have little issues (we already live under Federal Law).
However, we see the following facts with Part 4:
- Federal Law does not prohibit ownership of machine guns,
- There is no existing state law in Vermont that bans the ownership of them by law-abiding Vermont citizens,
- Owning a machine gun is tightly regulated and requires registration with both the ATF and local law enforcement in addition to being fingerprinted and undergoing a detailed background check,
- All those legally owned machine guns were manufactured before 1968, which means they are usually historically significant, very collectable and extremely expensive,
- There is no record we can find of ANY crime being committed in Vermont with a legally owned machine gun, and,
- 37 other states allow them to be owned.
We are deeply concerned about this section, which, either by ignorance or design, will adversely affect a considerable number of law-abiding Vermonters. We cannot support this section as written, but we believe we have already effected a positive change to this section, at least in the House bill.
Part 5 is PURE POISON. It allows for "firearm industry members" to be held liable for damages in public nuisance lawsuits.
20 years ago, Congress passed the Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA), a bill that was specifically designed to protect firearms manufacturers from liability if one of their products was used badly and they did nothing wrong. PLCAA was specifically designed to protect an industry that could be, and was being, sued out of existence through frivolous lawsuits.
Consider a company that makes cars, and they did nothing wrong in building, marketing and selling their cars. Would it be proper for that company to be sued when some idiot purposefully or even accidentally drives one of their cars into a crowd of people?
NO.
Part 5 is a direct and focused attack on one specific section of Vermont industry when PLCAA already protects that industry with full consideration of any misdeeds the manufacturer might do which should void that protection. This section cannot be seen in any light other than opening the door to "public nuisance lawsuits" that would put these Vermont companies, employing an estimated 300 Vermonters, out of business.
At present, and after raising these concerns privately with specific parties, we have asked for assurances that Part 5 will be DOA. If we cannot be given that assurance, then the Federation must and will commit to killing this abomination of a section, and we will be planning for a massive public response. Stay tuned.
On a final note, I was very pleased to previously report that we were successful in fighting Burlington's Charter Change to Ban Guns in Bars (S.131) last session; it ended up being tacked to the wall. Senate leadership however (who rushed it through the Senate even though Charter Changes historically are always handled first in the House), in addition to the Mayor of Burlington, are dead set on the idea that banning guns in bars in Burlington will save that city from the ruin it created and fosters. We remain opposed to this bill as is the Governor, and we will continue to fight it as needed. Again: Stay tuned.
For a complete list of bills that we are looking at and will get involved with if they move, please see the main page of our website.
If you like what we do to protect your rights, you can donate to our efforts using this page. PLEASE donate like your rights depended on it, and please forward this to your like-minded friends and family.
