6 Best Iron Filters for Well Water in 2026

Iron in well water can leave orange stains on toilets, discolor laundry, create a metallic taste, and gradually build up inside plumbing fixtures and appliances. A properly selected iron filter treats the water before it reaches the rest of the house.

The best iron filter for well water depends on more than the brand name. You need to consider the amount and type of iron in the water, the presence of manganese or hydrogen sulfide, household water demand, pH, hardness, maintenance requirements, and available installation space.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists 0.3 milligrams per liter, or parts per million, as the secondary standard for iron in drinking water. Iron above this level may cause rusty color, sediment, metallic taste, and reddish-orange staining. 

After comparing treatment method, flow rate, iron-removal capability, maintenance, installation requirements, and suitability for different well-water conditions, these are the six best iron filters for well water.

Best Iron Filter for Well Water: Quick Comparison
Rank
Iron filter
Best for
Treatment type
Notable feature
1
SpringWell WS Series
Best overall
Air-injection oxidation and backwashing filtration
Treats iron, manganese, and sulfur
2
Culligan Smart High Efficiency Iron-Cleer
Best professionally installed system
Oxidation and automatic filtration
Smart monitoring and dealer support
3
Waterdrop WD-WHF3T-FG
Best cartridge-based value
Seven-stage cartridge filtration
15 GPM flow rate
4
SpringWell Filter and Salt-Based Softener
Best for iron and hard water
Oxidation filtration and ion-exchange softening
Treats multiple well-water problems
5
Fleck 2510-Based Iron Filter
Best customizable system
Configurable backwashing filtration
Flexible media and treatment setup
6
iSpring WHO32B-MKS
Best freestanding cartridge system
Three-stage cartridge filtration
Drain-assisted filter changes 1. SpringWell WS Series — Best Overall Iron Filter for Well Water

The SpringWell WS Series ranks first because it combines strong iron-removal capability with a chemical-free air-injection oxidation process.

The system creates an air pocket inside the treatment tank. As well water passes through this area, dissolved iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide are oxidized into particles that can be captured by the filter media. The system then backwashes automatically to flush accumulated contaminants into a drain.

SpringWell states that its air-injection system can treat up to 7 parts per million of iron, 1 part per million of manganese, and 8 parts per million of hydrogen sulfide. 

Two sizes are available:

• The WS1 provides a service flow rate of 12 gallons per minute.
• The WS4 provides a service flow rate of 18 gallons per minute.

The WS1 is generally suited to smaller and medium-sized households, while the WS4 provides additional capacity for larger homes with four or more bathrooms. Both systems require a drain connection and sufficient well-pump capacity for backwashing. 

Why it ranks first

The SpringWell WS Series is designed specifically for the most common aesthetic problems associated with well water: iron stains, black manganese deposits, and rotten-egg odor caused by hydrogen sulfide.

Unlike cartridge filters, the primary media does not require replacement every few months. Automatic backwashing reduces routine maintenance, although the control head, drain line, and media bed still need periodic inspection.

Advantages

• Treats iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide
• No routine chemical injection
• Automatic backwashing
• Available in 12 GPM and 18 GPM configurations
• Suitable for whole-house treatment
• Strong documented iron-treatment capacity

Limitations

• Requires electricity and a drain
• Needs adequate well-pump flow for backwashing
• May require professional installation
• Does not soften hard water

Best for

Homes with moderate to high iron levels, sulfur odor, manganese staining, or several related well-water problems.

2. Culligan Smart High Efficiency Iron-Cleer — Best Professionally Installed Iron Filter

The Culligan Smart High Efficiency Iron-Cleer is a strong option for homeowners who prefer professional water testing, system sizing, installation, and ongoing service.

The system uses an oxidation process to convert dissolved iron into filterable particles. It is intended to address metallic taste, rust-colored stains, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide odor. Its smart controls provide continuous system monitoring and allow users to review operating information remotely. 

Culligan also offers the Select Plus Series Iron-Cleer as a less technology-focused alternative. This system is designed for both well and municipal water and targets staining, unpleasant taste, appliance buildup, and hydrogen sulfide odor. 

Why it ranks second

Water chemistry can make iron treatment complicated. Factors such as pH, iron type, manganese, sulfur, tannins, and bacterial activity may affect performance. Culligan’s dealer-based model is useful when a homeowner does not want to size, install, program, and troubleshoot the equipment independently.

The main disadvantage is that product specifications and costs may depend on the system configuration recommended by the local dealer.

Advantages

• Professional water testing and sizing
• Automatic oxidation and filtration
• Smart system monitoring
• Treats iron-related staining and metallic taste
• Can address manganese and hydrogen sulfide
• Installation and service support are available

Limitations

• Usually requires a dealer consultation
• Pricing is not as transparent as direct-purchase systems
• Features and capacity may vary by configuration
• Homeowners have less control over installation

Best for

Homeowners who want a professionally configured iron filter with monitoring, installation, and local service.

3. Waterdrop WD-WHF3T-FG — Best Cartridge-Based Value

The Waterdrop WD-WHF3T-FG is a three-housing whole-house filter that uses seven stages of filtration to reduce iron, manganese, chlorine, rust, sediment, sand, and odor.

According to Waterdrop, third-party initial-performance testing showed reductions of 95.9% for iron, 99.7% for manganese, and 97.7% for chlorine. The system also carries NSF/ANSI 372 certification for lead-free materials. 

The WD-WHF3T-FG provides a rated flow of 15 gallons per minute and uses 5-micron filtration. Its iron-and-manganese cartridges are listed for approximately six to twelve months of service, although actual filter life depends heavily on contaminant levels and household water consumption. 

Why it ranks third

This Waterdrop system is easier to understand and maintain than a large backwashing tank. It does not require an electronic control valve or automatic regeneration cycle.

Its compact design and 15 GPM flow rate make it practical for homes with limited utility-room space. It also treats sediment and chlorine-related issues alongside iron and manganese.

However, percentage-reduction results should not be confused with a maximum supported iron concentration. Homeowners with severe iron contamination should confirm that a cartridge system can handle their laboratory results before purchasing.

Advantages

• Seven-stage filtration
• 15 GPM whole-house flow rate
• Reduces iron, manganese, sediment, rust, chlorine, and odor
• Compact compared with tank-based filters
• No automatic backwashing cycle
• Lead-free material certification

Limitations

• Replacement cartridges create recurring expenses
• Severe iron may clog cartridges quickly
• No published maximum influent iron level on the product page
• Does not remove hardness
• Filter life varies substantially with water quality

Best for

Homes with mild to moderate iron, manganese, sediment, or chlorine concerns that need an accessible cartridge-based whole-house filter.

4. SpringWell Well Water Filter and Salt-Based Softener — Best for Iron and Hard Water

Iron and hardness are separate water-quality problems. An iron filter oxidizes and captures iron, while a water softener uses ion exchange to reduce calcium and magnesium.

The SpringWell Well Water Filter and Salt-Based Softener combines an air-injection iron filter with a conventional salt-based softener. This configuration treats iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide before reducing hardness minerals.

The iron-filter portion is rated for up to 7 parts per million of iron, 1 part per million of manganese, and 8 parts per million of hydrogen sulfide. The WS1 iron filter provides a 12 GPM service flow, while the WS4 provides an 18 GPM service flow. The corresponding softeners are available in different capacities for smaller and larger households. 

Why it ranks fourth

This combination is more appropriate than using a water softener alone when the well contains substantial iron. Heavy iron loading can foul a softener’s resin and reduce its efficiency. Placing a dedicated iron filter before the softener protects the softening stage and treats a broader range of water problems.

The tradeoff is increased equipment size, installation complexity, salt use, wastewater discharge, and maintenance.

Advantages

• Treats iron and hard water in one coordinated setup
• Reduces manganese and hydrogen sulfide
• Helps protect the softener from heavy iron loading
• Available for different household sizes
• Automatic iron-filter backwashing
• Provides softened water throughout the house

Limitations

• Requires more installation space
• Needs electricity, drainage, and a brine tank
• Requires regular salt replenishment
• Produces backwash and regeneration wastewater
• More complex than a single iron filter

Best for

Well-water homes experiencing orange iron stains, scale buildup, soap scum, spotted dishes, and other signs of both iron and hardness.

5. Fleck 2510-Based Iron Filter — Best Customizable Iron-Removal System

A Fleck 2510-based iron filter is not always sold as one standardized package. Instead, the Fleck control valve may be paired with different tank sizes, oxidation methods, injectors, and filter media.

This flexibility allows a water-treatment professional to configure the system for the household’s iron level, pH, manganese concentration, sulfur odor, flow requirements, and available backwash rate.

The Fleck 2510 is used on automatic backwashing and regeneration systems. Its installation requirements include a drain, a bypass arrangement, appropriate water pressure, and sufficient backwash flow. Fleck documentation also warns that plumbing heavily clogged with iron should be cleaned or replaced and that a dedicated iron filter may be required ahead of a softener. 

Why it ranks fifth

A properly configured Fleck system can provide effective treatment and long-term serviceability. Replacement valves, seals, injectors, pistons, and control components are commonly serviceable rather than requiring replacement of the complete tank assembly.

Its main weakness is inconsistency between sellers. Two systems labeled as Fleck 2510 iron filters may use different media, tank sizes, oxidation methods, and programming. Buyers must examine the complete treatment package rather than evaluating the valve name alone.

Advantages

• Highly configurable
• Automatic backwashing
• Serviceable control platform
• Can be paired with different iron-filter media
• Suitable for professionally designed systems
• Available in different tank and flow configurations

Limitations

• Performance depends on the complete system configuration
• No single universal iron-removal rating
• Requires correct programming and backwash flow
• Usually needs professional sizing
• Product quality may vary between assembled packages

Best for

Homeowners working with a knowledgeable installer who can build and program a system around detailed laboratory water-test results.

6. iSpring WHO32B-MKS — Best Freestanding Cartridge Iron Filter

The iSpring WHO32B-MKS is a three-stage whole-house cartridge system designed for iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, sediment, chlorine, and certain heavy metals.

The system is rated to treat dissolved iron concentrations of up to 3 parts per million and manganese concentrations of up to 1 part per million. It provides a flow rate of up to 15 gallons per minute. iSpring states that the cartridges may last for up to 150,000 gallons or 12 months, whichever occurs first. Actual service life will depend on the water’s contaminant concentration and household usage. 

The horizontal housings include drain valves that allow users to release pressure and drain water before removing the cartridges. The system also stands on its own steel frame, eliminating the need to mount heavy filter housings on a wall.

Why it ranks sixth

The WHO32B-MKS offers clearly stated iron and manganese limits, high whole-house flow, standard-sized cartridges, and a more convenient filter-change design.

It ranks below the backwashing systems because cartridge consumption can become expensive when well water contains heavy iron or sediment. The product page also indicated that the model was out of stock when reviewed, so availability should be verified before purchase. 

Advantages

• Treats up to 3 PPM of dissolved iron
• Treats up to 1 PPM of manganese
• Up to 15 GPM flow rate
• Targets hydrogen sulfide odor
• Freestanding steel frame
• Drain valves simplify cartridge replacement
• Uses standard 20-by-4.5-inch cartridges

Limitations

• Cartridge life decreases in heavily contaminated water
• Replacement filters create recurring costs
• Not intended for iron levels above its stated limit
• Does not soften hard water
• Availability may vary

Best for

Homes with low to moderate dissolved iron that need a freestanding cartridge system with easier filter changes.

How to Choose the Best Iron Filter for Well Water Test the well water first

Do not select an iron filter based only on orange stains or metallic taste. Obtain laboratory results for:

• Total iron
• Ferrous and ferric iron, when available
• Manganese
• pH
• Hardness
• Hydrogen sulfide
• Turbidity and sediment
• Tannins
• Coliform bacteria
• Nitrate and other locally relevant contaminants

The CDC recommends testing private well water at least once each year for total coliform bacteria, nitrates, total dissolved solids, and pH. Additional testing should be based on local conditions and observed water-quality problems. 

Identify the type of iron

Ferrous iron is dissolved and may initially appear clear. After exposure to air, the water can turn orange or brown. Ferric iron is already oxidized and may make the water appear discolored immediately. Organic or colloidal iron can be more difficult to remove because it may remain suspended or be associated with natural organic matter. 

A basic sediment cartridge may capture ferric particles but usually will not remove substantial dissolved ferrous iron without an oxidation stage.

Match the filter to the iron concentration

For lower iron levels, a specialized cartridge system may be sufficient. Higher concentrations generally favor an oxidation and backwashing system with a clearly documented iron limit.

Never assume that a filter reporting a high percentage reduction can treat water with any iron concentration. Reduction percentage, test conditions, filter capacity, and maximum influent concentration are different measurements.

Check pH requirements

Oxidation and filter-media performance can be affected by pH. Some iron filters work poorly in acidic water. Compare the laboratory pH result with the manufacturer’s operating range and determine whether a neutralizer is needed.

Confirm the required flow rate

The service flow rate must support simultaneous fixtures without causing a major pressure drop. Larger households, multiple bathrooms, high-flow showers, and large appliances may require a higher-capacity model.

Backwashing tank systems also need sufficient well-pump output. A filter that requires 5 or 7 GPM for backwashing may not clean itself properly if the well pump cannot maintain that rate.

Consider manganese and sulfur

Black staining may indicate manganese, while a rotten-egg smell often points to hydrogen sulfide. Choose a system specifically rated for these problems rather than assuming that every iron filter will remove them.

Decide between cartridge and backwashing filters

Cartridge iron filters generally have a lower initial complexity and require less floor space. They are often suitable for mild or moderate contamination.

Backwashing filters cost more to install but are generally better suited to higher contaminant loads. Instead of replacing cartridges frequently, they clean the media automatically by reversing water flow and sending accumulated material to a drain.

Frequently Asked Questions What is the best iron filter for well water?

The SpringWell WS Series is the best overall option in this ranking because it has a clearly stated iron-treatment limit, automatic backwashing, multiple flow-rate options, and the ability to treat manganese and hydrogen sulfide.

The most appropriate system still depends on laboratory water-test results.

How much iron can an iron filter remove?

Capacity varies by design. In this comparison, the SpringWell air-injection system is rated for up to 7 PPM of iron, while the iSpring WHO32B-MKS is rated for up to 3 PPM.

Other systems may report percentage reductions rather than a maximum incoming iron concentration. These figures should not be treated as interchangeable.

Will an iron filter remove the rotten-egg smell from well water?

Only filters designed to treat hydrogen sulfide should be expected to reduce rotten-egg odor. The SpringWell WS Series, Culligan Iron-Cleer systems, and iSpring WHO32B-MKS are designed to address hydrogen sulfide alongside iron.

Can a water softener remove iron?

A softener may reduce small amounts of dissolved iron, but it is not a substitute for a dedicated iron filter when iron concentrations are substantial. Excess iron can foul the resin, increase salt consumption, and shorten service life.

For water containing both high iron and hardness, an iron filter followed by a softener is generally the more appropriate configuration.

Do iron filters remove bacteria?

An iron filter should not be assumed to disinfect well water. Iron bacteria and disease-causing microorganisms require separate evaluation and may need well cleaning, disinfection, or an additional treatment stage.

Have the water tested by a qualified laboratory before relying on any filtration system for microbiological safety.

How often should an iron filter be replaced?

Replacement frequency depends on the type of filter.

Cartridge filters may require replacement every few months or approximately once per year. Backwashing media systems can operate for several years, but valves, injectors, drainage components, and media still require inspection and eventual servicing.

Does an iron filter reduce water pressure?

Any filter can reduce pressure if it is undersized, clogged, incorrectly installed, or operated beyond its rated flow. Select a system with sufficient service flow for the household and replace or backwash the filter as required.

Final Verdict

The SpringWell WS Series is the best iron filter for well water overall because of its air-injection oxidation process, automatic backwashing, strong documented iron capacity, and ability to treat manganese and hydrogen sulfide.

The Culligan Smart High Efficiency Iron-Cleer is the strongest choice for homeowners who prefer professional testing, installation, monitoring, and service.

The Waterdrop WD-WHF3T-FG provides a practical cartridge-based option for mild to moderate iron and sediment. The SpringWell filter-and-softener combination is more suitable when the home has both iron contamination and hard water.

A Fleck 2510-based system offers extensive customization when designed by a qualified installer. The iSpring WHO32B-MKS is a useful freestanding cartridge system for iron concentrations within its stated 3 PPM limit.

Before purchasing any iron filter for well water, test the water, confirm the type and concentration of iron, verify the household flow requirement, and check whether the well pump can support the system’s backwashing needs.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Broadcaster" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to broadcaster-news+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/broadcaster-news/948625b6-dd7e-4d95-a38d-d1d0986b289bn%40googlegroups.com.

The End of Assault Weapon Bans (AWBs)

AWBs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Bernard -- HUGE NEWS ON AWBs!!! Today, June 30 2026, 4 days before the 4th of July, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just granted Certiorari (judicial review) on Viramontes v Cook, and they then consolidated that case with Grant v Higgins, two cases which challenge the constitutionality of bans on Modern Sporting Rifles (incorrectly referred to as “Assault Weapons Bans - (AWBs).” This means that SCOTUS will FINALLY hear arguments on the constitutionality of AWBs, and we already know what the outcome will be. As you may be aware, there are also currently 3 challenges to bans on “High Capacity” magazines in front of SCOTUS that have been waiting for action, however all three of these cases have been held over; likely meaning that once SCOTUS decides the unconstitutionality of Modern Sporting Rifles bans, they will then Grant, Vacate and Remand (GVR) all three magazine bans. When SCOTUS GVRs a case, it means that SCOTUS disagrees with the decision of the lower court(s); they Vacate the lower court’s decision(s), and they then Remand the case back down to the lower court to have the lower court do it over, using guidance provided by SCOTUS. So:  Come this fall when SCOTUS re-convenes (they take the summer off), they will hear arguments on AWBs.  They will consider the arguments made and then render their decision, and it is how they write that decision that will then give guidance to the lower courts on how and what those inferior courts should consider when they make their new decision on standard capacity magazines. In the meantime, the VTFSC awaits a decision from the 2nd Circuit on our appeal of the denial of our motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the unconstitutional 72-hour Waiting Period.  We have high hopes that that the 3-judge panel from the 2nd Circuit will strike down that denial:  Meaning we will NOT be unconstitutionally prevented from possessing a purchased firearm immediately after we pass a background check pending the outcome of our court case. We have cause to really celebrate this 4th of July, let Freedom ring! Thanks To Each of You for your Unwavering Support! Like What We do? If you like what we do to protect your rights, you can donate to our efforts using this page, and please forward this to your like-minded friends and family. Yours in Freedom and Liberty - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs https://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.

Holding the Line on Gun Bills

All things considered: We Did VERY WELL This Biennium!

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Bernard -- Last Friday the Legislature finished the second half of the 25-26 biennium, and I am pleased to say that we did very well: 3 “Assault Weapon Ban” bills were introduced but went nowhere. 3 “Gun Bans in Government Buildings” were introduced but went nowhere. A Burlington Charter Change that would ban guns in Burlington bars (and restaurants / hotels) made it through the Senate Government Operations Committee and then made it through the Senate, where the majority simply ignored Constitutional Issues. Fortunately, the House Government Operations Committee DID understand the Constitutional issues, and it then died on the wall. Then came H.606, billed as the “Omnibus Gun Bill,” which had 5 parts: The 1st section would have made it a felony to steal a gun. The 2nd section increased the penalties for second and subsequent offenses for a Prohibited Person found with a firearm. The 3rd section would have expanded the definitions of who was a Prohibited Person. The 4th section would have banned machine guns and “rapid fire devices”; and The 5th section would have attempted to bypass the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow “public nuisance lawsuits” against gun owners and individuals or companies who sell firearms or firearm accessories. We got Section 1 changed to better conform to existing State law.  We did not see any major issues with Section 2, and we attempted to influence Section 3 to no avail. On Section 4, it was our testimony that got the language changed to conform to existing Federal law regarding machine guns, with that change dropping any reference to “rapid fire devices.” Section 5 of H.606 was so egregious, insidious, and vile that the VTFSC made a public commitment that we would kill that section BEFORE H.606 was even introduced into the House Judiciary Committee, and:  We Got That Done. H.606 was then voted out of the House and went to Senate Judiciary where we intended to fix the remaining concerns with the bill; primarily issues with Section 3. Senate Pro Tempore Phillip Baruth had other plans, however. Senator Baruth had gone out on a limb in publicly committing to do everything he could to push through a “No Guns in Bars” ban, and if he could not get that done through the dead-on-the-wall Charter Change, he would do it as an amendment to H.606, except that the ban would be statewide, NOT Burlington specific. Two other amendments were also introduced, one dealing with establishing better procedures for the handling of firearms that have been ordered to be relinquished by an individual either through an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO / “Red Flag Laws”) or through Domestic Violence; the second amendment would have reduced the current 72-hour waiting period by the time taken to have a firearm shipped to a legal purchaser. Unfortunately for Mr. Baruth, a question arose internally as to whether his “Statewide Ban on Guns in Bars” was “germane” to the original bill – and it was not.  To get around that, Pro Tem Baruth called an emergency meeting of the Senate Rules Committee with the hope that they would sanction a new bill to be created, even though the final date a bill could be introduced had passed, along with the usually critical “Crossover” date.  The Committee voted 3-2 along party lines to allow that to occur, so a new bill was born:  S.329. S.329 as introduced was an exact copy of H.606, except that it NOW had a “No Guns in Bars Statewide” section.  It was then further amended to include the proposed amendment that would reduce the 72-hour waiting period for the time it may have taken to ship the firearm.  S.329 was then voted out of the Senate Judiciary committee; it was voted out of the Senate and was then sent over to House Judiciary – where it then died. In the meantime, what had been H.606 had everything removed that was originally in it and was then amended to JUST be a bill dealing with firearms relinquishment.  H.606 was then voted out of the Senate Judiciary, it went over to the House Judiciary, where they passed the bill on a 6-5 party line vote, and it then passed the House. The bottom line in all this is that we did eat a single 3-section bill (H.606) that had to do with relinquishment, a process that does need to be uniform across the state.  Unfortunately, we did not agree with the last version of the bill – but will look to amend this language in subsequent sessions. Of course:  We are also waiting to hear back from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on our challenge to the 72-hour Waiting Period – a decision we should have in hand before the end of this year – even if they do drag their feet. We did VERY WELL this past biennium and we look forward to continuing the fight for our Constitution, Freedom, and Liberty in the 2027-2028 session. Thanks To Each of You for your Unwavering Support! Like What We do? If you like what we do to protect your rights, you can donate to our efforts using this page, and please forward this to your like-minded friends and family. Yours in Freedom and Liberty - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs https://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.

Update: H.606 and S.329

Ban on Guns in Restaurants, Hotels and Bars

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Bernard -- When we last reported on H.606, it had left House Judiciary with 4 sections, but after being introduced into Senate Judiciary, it underwent a major transformation.  At that time:  S.329 did not even exist. When H.606 was picked up in Senate Judiciary, two amendments were immediately offered and a third was suggested.  The first amendment came from the AG’s Office and added several sections that would pertain to handling Firearm Relinquishment when a court orders this to occur.  The second was a proposed amendment from Senator Baruth concerning a statewide ban on possessing a firearm in locations which serve alcohol, commonly referred to as “No Guns in Bars.”  The third suggested amendment had to do with subtracting any “shipping time” from the 72-Hour Waiting Period when a firearm was ordered out-of-state. Regarding the amendment of “No Guns in Bars,” a question arose internally as to whether the amendment would be “germane” to the rest of the bill.  In response, Senator Baruth convened the Senate Rules Committee in an Emergency Meeting so that the Rules of the Senate could be bypassed to allow a new bill to be created, with that bill being S.329. As introduced into Senate Judiciary, S.329 contained the 4 sections that were in H.606, but with the addition of Senator Baruth’s “No Guns in Bars” section.  In the discussions that ensued, Senate Judiciary agreed to: Remove section 1 (making it a felony to steal a firearm) Make minor changes to what was section 3 (now section 2 - pertaining to Persons Prohibited from Possessing a gun) Add an amendment as section 3 (which modifies the 72-hour waiting period to reduce that wait time by the “shipping time” if a firearm was ordered out-of-state) Kept section 4 (regarding a ban on machine guns) Kept section 5 (“No Guns in Bars”), and Add section 6 (which requires NCIS to be informed when a court finds a person is in need of treatment or needs further treatment.) The current version of S.329 can be seen here.  This was voted out of Senate Judiciary on a 3-2 vote last week; it will be moved through the Senate on Friday 5/8 and will then head to House Judiciary.  WE STRONGLY OPPOSE S.329, primarily due to the “No Guns in Bars” section as this is far more expansive than just banning guns in bars.  It would ban guns in all sorts of public places in addition to "bars" such as restaurants, special events, hotels and the parking lots of all of these premises.  Further than that, the simple act of putting up a sign does not guarantee the safety of anyone, with the cost of insuring that guns cannot be brought into bars (or restaurants or hotels or parking lots) being prohibitively expensive (x-ray machines, magnetometers and people trained to run that equipment and check bags.) Meanwhile, H.606 was amended to strike everything that had originally been in that bill, inserting instead the Firearm Relinquishment language, which has 3 sections.  The current version of H.606 can be seen here and is expected to be voted out of Senate Judiciary tomorrow, 5/7. Regarding H.606:  At present we have several issues with the Relinquishment language, due mostly to the appearance that the bill does not properly support 3rd parties from being able to take custody of relinquished firearms (in addition to FFLs and Law Enforcement.)  Ideally, the State must create a storage facility for relinquished firearms with staff that would handle them appropriately, but until then:  3rd Parties offer the best alternative regarding caring for relinquished firearms, in addition to being the most cost-effective solution for the accused in this complex situation. We expect H.606 to move quickly.  The fate of S.329 however is up in the air, but we should not underestimate Senator Baruth’s desire to have “No Guns in Bars” be his swan song in his last term as a Senator.  We therefore expect him to pull out all stops to get this passed and as Senate Pro Tem, he has the power to try. Stay tuned for Taking Action…. Like What We do? If you like what we do to protect your rights, you can donate to our efforts using this page, and please forward this to your like-minded friends and family. Yours in Freedom and Liberty - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs https://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.

Corrected Link - Oral Arguments in 2nd Circuit - 72 Hour Waiting Period

End of the 72-Hour Waiting Period?

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Bernard -- Apologies.  Am re-sending with a corrected link to the 2nd Circuit.  The other link would take you to SCOTUS (we must have had that our our mind...) This message is a heads-up that Oral Arguments on our appeal of the District Court of Vermont’s denial of our motion for a Preliminary Injunction (PI) on the 72-Hour Waiting Period is scheduled to be heard in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals at 10AM tomorrow, Tuesday 4/28. Stepping back for a moment, you will recall that we originally challenged both the Large Capacity Magazine Ban and the 72-Hour waiting period.  When the Vermont District Court issued the denial of our PI, we immediately appealed that decision up to the 2nd Circuit, with our court case being put on hold in the District Court of Vermont until our appeal was heard and decided. On August 22, 2025, the 2nd Circuit made a ruling on an appeal in NAGR vs. Lamont where they (incorrectly) ruled that a ban on Large Capacity Magazines *IS* constitutional.  With that decision, our challenge to Vermont’s Magazine Ban was rendered moot (at least in the 2nd Circuit) until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on either Duncan v Bonta or Gator’s Custom Guns v Washington (both of which are challenges to Magazine Bans).  These Oral Arguments can be listened to at the following YouTube link, but be advised it will only be audio, there is no video. https://ww2.ca2.uscourts.gov/court.html The 2nd Circuit’s schedule shows that the Oral Arguments for our case will start at approximately 10AM, but it could start a bit before or after.  A 3-judge panel of Justices Lynch, Bianco and Menashi will hear it with our lead Counsel Brady Toensing speaking for us (the good guys) with each side being given 10 minutes. This will be extremely interesting as there is now a Circuit split between the 1st Circuit and the 10th Circuit on the questions of Waiting Periods with the 1st Circuit stating that a Waiting Period doesn’t even impact the Second Amendment (and is therefore constitutional) with the 10th Circuit stating that such a ban is unconstitutional. To date, we have invested over $250,000 in this challenge and we still have a long way to go.  While you may have donated money to this cause previously, I ask that you please consider donating again.  If you have not yet donated…we ask that you consider what your rights are worth, and then please consider donating. On other fronts, S.329 (which began as H.606) now has 8 sections, with another amendment to this bill in the works.  The Senate Judiciary has S.329 on its agenda for Thursday April 30th at 10AM as “Mark-up and Possible Vote.” Whatever the final form it has taken in Senate Judiciary, it will then move through the Senate and House floors where it will end up in House Judiciary for further refinement.  We WILL be testifying further to that bill, and we will keep you informed. Like What We do? If you like what we do to protect your rights, you can donate to our efforts using this page, and please forward this to your like-minded friends and family. Yours in Freedom and Liberty - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs https://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.

Oral Arguments in 2nd Circuit - 72 Hour Waiting Period

End of the 72-Hour Waiting Period?

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Bernard -- This message is a heads-up that Oral Arguments on our appeal of the District Court of Vermont’s denial of our motion for a Preliminary Injunction (PI) on the 72-Hour Waiting Period is scheduled to be heard in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals at 10AM tomorrow, Tuesday 4/28. Stepping back for a moment, you will recall that we originally challenged both the Large Capacity Magazine Ban and the 72-Hour waiting period.  When the Vermont District Court issued the denial of our PI, we immediately appealed that decision up to the 2nd Circuit, with our court case being put on hold in the District Court of Vermont until our appeal was heard and decided. On August 22, 2025, the 2nd Circuit made a ruling on an appeal in NAGR vs. Lamont where they (incorrectly) ruled that a ban on Large Capacity Magazines *IS* constitutional.  With that decision, our challenge to Vermont’s Magazine Ban was rendered moot (at least in the 2nd Circuit) until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on either Duncan v Bonta or Gator’s Custom Guns v Washington (both of which are challenges to Magazine Bans).  These Oral Arguments can be listened to at the following YouTube link, but be advised it will only be audio, there is no video. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=supreme+Court+arguments The 2nd Circuit’s schedule shows that the Oral Arguments for our case will start at approximately 10AM, but it could start a bit before or after.  A 3-judge panel of Justices Lynch, Bianco and Menashi will hear it with our lead Counsel Brady Toensing speaking for us (the good guys) with each side being given 10 minutes. This will be extremely interesting as there is now a Circuit split between the 1st Circuit and the 10th Circuit on the questions of Waiting Periods with the 1st Circuit stating that a Waiting Period doesn’t even impact the Second Amendment (and is therefore constitutional) with the 10th Circuit stating that such a ban is unconstitutional. To date, we have invested over $250,000 in this challenge and we still have a long way to go.  While you may have donated money to this cause previously, I ask that you please consider donating again.  If you have not yet donated…we ask that you consider what your rights are worth, and then please consider donating. On other fronts, S.329 (which began as H.606) now has 8 sections, with another amendment to this bill in the works.  The Senate Judiciary has S.329 on its agenda for Thursday April 30th at 10AM as “Mark-up and Possible Vote.” Whatever the final form it has taken in Senate Judiciary, it will then move through the Senate and House floors where it will end up in House Judiciary for further refinement.  We WILL be testifying further to that bill, and we will keep you informed. Like What We do? If you like what we do to protect your rights, you can donate to our efforts using this page, and please forward this to your like-minded friends and family. Yours in Freedom and Liberty - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs https://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.

H.606 (now S.329) Update

H.606 has morphed into a monster

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

Bernard --  H.606 / S.329 After a huge amount of work, H.606 (referred to as the “Omnibus Firearms Bill” at one point) was radically changed from what it started out as.  The Federation is incredibly pleased that we were able to defeat the insidious “Manufacturer’s Liability” section before it was even formally introduced, something unprecedented.  We were also able to provide wording for the best way to manage illegal machine guns, in addition to other positive changes.  H.606 was then voted out of the House Judiciary Committee; then voted through the House; ending up in the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC). H.606 was introduced into the SJC on April 2nd with a walkthrough by legislative counsel and some testimony taken.  On that date, two amendments were suggested.  The first was a Firearm Relinquishment bill brought forward by the AG’s office in response to a Firearms Relinquishment Working Group that met across 2025, and the second was a “No Guns in Bars Statewide” bill brought forward by Senator Baruth. Testimony continued April 3rd, with the NRA, the Federation and Gun Owners of Vermont providing testimony.  Because neither of the two amendments had been voted as now being part of H.606 however:  Testimony on the Relinquishment or “No Guns in Bars Statewide” amendment was limited.  After the “No Guns in Bars Statewide” amendment was suggested for inclusion into H.606, a question arose as to whether that amendment would be germane to the intent of that bill.  In order to bypass that concern, Senator Baruth called an Emergency Meeting of the Senate Rules Committee on April 15th (a meeting that did NOT appear on the Rules Committee Agenda for that week) wherein the Senate Rules Committee suspended the Rules of the Senate to allow a new bill to be created.  This was necessary to sidestep the fact that the bill introduction cutoff date AND the crossover cutoff date had both long passed by.   The newly minted bill was S.329 which included all language from H.606 as it left the House but added a new section 5 which is Senator Baruth’s “No Guns in Bars Statewide” bill. Amazingly, a little over 1 hour later that newly created bill was introduced onto the Senate floor where it was immediately assigned to the SJC. On April 17th, S.329 was introduced to the SJC, but the allotted time ran out before the walkthrough could be completed.  However:  During that initial walkthrough, the Committee voted to remove Section 1 (make it a felony to steal any firearm).  There was also brief discussion that the Relinquishment bill still needed to be added into S.329 (but needed “tweaks), and another possible amendment might also be considered which would amend the 72-hour Waiting Period to be lessened by any shipping time it may take to have a firearm shipped to the Vermont purchaser. S.329 is now scheduled before SJC tomorrow April 21st at 10AM.  We expect the walkthrough to pick up with section 4 (illegal machine guns), and then the “No Guns in Bars Statewide” section, as well as walkthroughs of the other possible two amendments.  The schedule shows only “Mark-up,” not any vote.  The current schedule for the SJC for the remainder of the week looks full except for Friday the 24th, which has a TBD entry at approximately 10AM. We will be requesting further testimony, as I presume others will as well. Given that we were pivotal in helping to stop the two attempts at Charter Changes for “No Guns in Bars” in Burlington, we most assuredly have problems with Mr. Baruth’s statewide attempt to ban firearms where alcohol is served.  Its blatantly unconstitutional and we oppose. We still have a problem with Section 3 of H.606 dealing with people who have been ordered for non-hospitalization treatment and being unable to possess firearms as this does not align with Federal Law.  We must oppose. As for the firearm Relinquishment section:  While we recognize the need for a uniform and consistent process, what has been provided will cause dire problems as there are distinct differences between Temporary Relief From Abuse (RFA) orders and Final Orders which this amendment ignores completely, so we strongly oppose. We expect S.329 will pass the SJC in some form.  What form is too early to tell, but we will continue to fight bad legislation and will keep you informed. Oral Arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Our oral arguments on the 72-Hour Waiting Period before the 2nd Circuit Court will be happening on April 28th, so stay tuned as we will be providing a link for anyone who would like to watch and listen. Like What We do? If you like what we do to protect your rights, you can donate to our efforts using this page, and please forward this to your like-minded friends and family. Yours in Freedom and Liberty - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs https://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.