Anti-gun Democrats in states like Washington and Colorado have been going all out in their attempt to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms this year, but the Democrat-controlled legislature in Vermont has taken a more narrow approach to go after gun owners. The only gun control bill that’s still making progress in Montpelier this session is a measure that would stop lawful gun owners from carrying bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, and even that legislation has been amended to make it more limited in its scope.
The legislation would apply only in the city of Burlington, and would not include every square inch of the property in question.
Burlington’s proposal is the only gun control measure that has made progress in the Statehouse so far this session. The measure’s lead supporter, Burlington resident and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, has called it a “common sense” change to keep bar patrons and staff safe from violence.
“I don’t think there’s anybody out there who would argue that guns and alcohol should be together,” said Baruth, who has long advocated for stricter gun laws in the state, in an interview. “The idea that people would argue, ‘well, I’m in a bar. I’ve only had a couple of drinks. I should have lethal force on me,’ that’s just a silly argument.”
How about, “I’m the designated driver, and I shouldn’t have to sacrifice my right to defend myself just because I’m wiling to be the only sober person at a bar with my friends”?
If Burlington wanted to make it illegal to carry while actively intoxicated, I wouldn’t raise a stink. I think that probably does comport with the national tradition of gun ownership, as well as the fundamental rules of gun safety. That’s not what S. 131 does, though. It makes establishments where alcohol is served off limits to lawful carry, even for those patrons who are sober.
There have been some minor modifications to S. 131, but the underlying intent of the bill is still alive and well, unfortunately.
As passed by Burlington voters, the proposal stated people may not “carry or possess” a gun “in any building or on any real property or parking area under the ownership or control of an establishment licensed to serve alcohol on its premises” in the city.
But parts of that language drew concern from the Legislature’s lawyers, who draft and review all bills. One of those attorneys, Erik FitzPatrick, told the Senate committee at a hearing this month he was “almost certain” that, if the language was enacted as passed by city voters, a court would find it in violation of the Second Amendment.
The issue, according to FitzPatrick, was not the underlying goal of banning guns from places where alcohol is served. He pointed to how other states — 15, according to the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety — have put some limits on firearms in bars already. He also cited a federal appeals court decision last fall that upheld a New York State law banning guns from bars and certain other types of locations.
Rather, he said, the issue was that Burlington’s original proposal applied to more types of locations — including parking lots and parts of a building where drinks wouldn’t be served — than court precedent on gun control legislation would, in his view, allow.
The city’s language is “vague, and constitutionally overbroad, because it sweeps in a lot of places that there’s really no basis to prohibit firearms,” FitzPatrick told the senators.
There’s really no basis to prohibit firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol either. I’m the first to agree that drinking and carrying is a terrible idea, but there’s not really a national tradition of banning lawful carry in places where alcohol is present or being served.
Besides, Burlington’s bar and restaurant owners already have the ability to declare their property “gun-free” if they choose. S. 131 takes that choice away and mandates they do so. It’s a freedom-killing measure that has no business becoming law, and while I’m glad that Vermont gun owners don’t have to worry about the prospects of a semi-auto ban or the repeal of permitless carry this session, this is still too much for those of us who believe that “shall not be infringed” actually means something.
Read the full article here
