Vermont Gov. Phil Scott has allowed a number of gun control measures to become law during his time in office, even when he’s publicly expressed skepticism about their effectiveness or constitutionality.
It’s downright surprising, then, to see the Republican declare that he’s ready to veto a gun control bill that’s currently winding its way through the legislature. On Wednesday Scott expressed his opposition to the legislation, which would create a new and city-specific “gun-free zone”.
“I don’t think that is going to fix what ails Burlington.”
That’s what Gov. Phil Scott told reporters Wednesday at his weekly press conference, speaking about a proposed change to the laws governing the state’s largest city that would ban guns from bars and other establishments that serve alcohol. He said he would veto the proposal — the only gun control measure legislators have advanced this year — if it makes it to his desk.
The charter change, S.131, cleared the Senate late last month. It has since been in the House Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee, which took testimony on the proposal as recently as Tuesday afternoon. Asked if his committee would pass out the proposal in time to get it to the governor before the end of the session, Rep. Matt Birong, D-Vergennes, who is the panel’s chair, gave only a short answer: “perhaps.”
Scott argues that the bill is both ineffective and unenforceable, and says he prefers to see a uniform body of gun laws throughout the state. Those are reasonable positions, but I wish he would have addressed the biggest flaw in the bill; the fact that it deprives lawful gun owners of their ability to bear arms in places that are hardly “sensitive” in nature.
There’s no real historical tradition of banning firearms in places where alcohol is served, though some courts have suggested that laws prohibiting the use of a firearm while intoxicated don’t violate the Second Amendment. If Vermont lawmakers want to pass a law prohibiting gun owners from imbibing while they’re carrying that might survive legal scrutiny, but as written the charter amendment approved by Burlington voters would probably be thrown out on constitutional grounds regardless of its enforceability.
While Vermont’s legislature is dominated by Democrats, S. 131 failed to get a veto-proof majority in the upper chamber, so even if the House takes up the bill before sine die it’s unlikely that the legislature would be able to override Scott’s veto. Hopefully the governor’s threat is enough to halt the bill’s progress in the House and keep the status quo in place, but if not Vermont gun owners should be ready to contact their representatives and senators and demand they reject this flagrant attempt to disarm lawful gun owners.
Burlington’s proposed “gun-free zone” was prompted by a fatal shooting outside a bar and nightclub last summer, and while the measure might have been approved with the best of intentions, the reality is these bans won’t stop someone intent on violence from carrying out their plans.
As we just covered yesterday here at Bearing Arms, though, armed citizens can and have stopped attacks at restaurants or other places where alcohol is served. In Peoria, Arizona a drunk patron who’d been booted from a sports bar was unarmed when he was kicked out, but went to his car and retrieved his gun before shooting at patrons inside. Thankfully, a pair of armed citizens sitting on a nearby bench saw what was happening and engaged the shooter, stopping the threat within seconds and well before law enforcement could respond.
Burlington’s proposed ban wouldn’t improve public safety. It would only make it more difficult, if not impossible, for lawful gun owners to defend themselves or others if need be. That’s the primary reason why Scott should veto S. 131 if it gets to his desk, even if his stated concerns are also valid objections.
Read the full article here
