From the Vermont State Police:
“Please be aware that Vermont does not at this time require or issue gun permits. Some Vermont towns and cities do have local ordinances, so if you are planning on visiting, it would be wise to contact the local police chief to find information pertaining to local information.”
What does that mean? Is it that the citizens of certain cities have chosen to ban guns? Why is the NRA letting them get away with that? Why don't the local gun owners stand up for their rights?
Or, maybe it's not that severe. Maybe they just have laws against open carry or have decided they don't want people carrying concealed in their town. But that would be a terrible infringement against the rights of those who disagree, even if they're in the minority.
Does it all mean that Vermont is not the gun paradise it's often described as?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
I'd like to see Mike's blog or post that Laci is responding to. Laci, Mike W., or MikeB could you please post a link?
ReplyDeleteI believe much of the discussion started on this blog when Laci claimed that VT did NOT have statewide preemption of firearms laws.
ReplyDeleteOf course they DO have statewide preemption, which is quite clearly stated in section 2295 of the state statutes.
As I've pointed out to her (but she's not real quick) preemption prohibits localities from passing gun laws that are more strict than state law.
Preemption DOES NOT mean that those localities cannot pass ordinances regulating the use/discharge of firearms.
DE has preemption. This means that the city of Wilmington cannot pass an ordinance prohibiting open carry, since it is lawful at the state level. It would also prevent a city from passing an AWB.
It prohibits a city in VT from doing what Chicago / Cook County has done. What it doesn't do is prohibit a city from passing a law prohibiting people from firing guns in city parks for example. (use/discharge)
If Laci does in fact practice firearms law I strongly encourage anyone needing such representation in DC to look for someone more competent.
I'm not sure but I believe Vermont allows local ordinances as to discharging a firearm, firearm sales (zoning) and such but laws that affect possession are pre-empted by the state.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you might be prohibited from shooting in your back yard in some local but they do not have local gun bans or restrictions.
FWM is exactly right.
ReplyDeleteSection 2295 and I quote
no town, city or incorporated village, by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate hunting, fishing and trapping or the possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or registration of traps, firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition.
The preemption statute is quite clear about what localities MAY NOT prohibit. Possession, ownership and carrying are on that list.
The State of Vermont says that I may carry my firearm, openly or concealed without a permit. A town within VT may not pass a law prohibiting me from doing so.
Laci doesn't link back to other people's arguments or quote them because that would make her look bad.
ReplyDeleteHell, she devoted a post to accusing me of anti-semitism without quoting me or linking to anything. Of course she had to, since her entire vile personal attack was a fabrication.
She's a vile, nasty bitch. Of course "she" is actually a 50 year old lawyer from PA practicing in DC.
"She's a vile, nasty bitch. Of course 'she' is actually a 50 year old lawyer from PA practicing in DC."
ReplyDeleteShe needs more practice.
I see Mike W. adds misogyny to his anti-semitism.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
misogyny? really? And where's my anti-semitism Jade?
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to your commenting policy MikeB, or are BS personal attacks ok so long as they're directed at pro-gun folks?
JadeGold: Is the misogyny remark because of Mike's comments on Laci? Because I'm pretty sure "she" is really a "he".
ReplyDeletePersonal attacks are all Jade has.
ReplyDeleteIt's no wonder mikeb refers to him as "a hero" in the gun control movement.
Laci also claims that CCW and /or Open Carry could be "disorderly conduct"
ReplyDeleteHere's VT's DC law.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=019&Section=01026
The lawful carriage of arms (absent other aggravating behavior) DOES NOT constitute "disorderly conduct" not in VT, nor here in DE.
I discussed that back in April 2008here.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/ohio-hostile-to-open-carry.html
MikeB - You'll notice that not only do the VT statutes bear it out, but your buddies at the Brady Campaign also plainly state that Vermont DOES have statewide preemption.
ReplyDeleteWhen Laci can't even get something right that the Brady's are capable of figuring out that's just a really sad reflection upon her. This isn't rocket science.
"Local Gun Laws - Preemption
May cities enact laws stronger than the state's?
No.
State law forbids local city or county governments from enacting any local gun laws, even though the state has failed to pass responsible state-wide laws. This preemption of local government authority makes it impossible for cities to enact sensible gun laws to make their citizens safer.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/gunlaws/VT
JadeGold:
ReplyDeletemikey never stoops to personal attacks. That is a tactic which, like making mistakes, is only engaged in by people with whom he disagrees.
While some Vermont towns and cities have ordinances regarding the carrying of firearms, the real question is are those ordinances actually enforced?
ReplyDelete"I see Mike W. adds misogyny to his anti-semitism."
ReplyDeleteIs it misogynistic if it's true? With all the venom Laci spews, I think Mike W. was fairly restrained.
Why don't you bother to do some basic research rather than make wild assumptions?
ReplyDeleteRhetorical question. You make wild assumptions just so people will comment on your blog. It gets butts in the seats, I know.
But it does get old after awhile.
Mike W. said, "What happened to your commenting policy MikeB, or are BS personal attacks ok so long as they're directed at pro-gun folks?"
ReplyDeleteAs I've mentioned before, I try to give everyone as much leeway as I can. It has nothing to do with which side of the argument you happen to be on. I don't condone personal attacks and name-calling, period. But I give people a lot of tolerance. You have long since used yours up, so most of your nasty superfluous nonsense gets deleted. This thread is an exception because it's about you. You must have noticed I allowed, "She's a vile, nasty bitch."
"Vile & nasty" isn't a "personal attack" it's an objective statement based on the words written on her blog.
ReplyDeleteAs for "bitch" she IS a female dog, so again that's a statement of fact not a personal attack.
mikey never stoops to personal attacks. That is a tactic which, like making mistakes, is only engaged in by people with whom he disagrees.
ReplyDeleteOh I get my licks in now and then, but I certainly take the moral & intellectual high road over folks like you and Laci.
It's a misogynistic comment. Hence, applying misogyny to Mike W. is entirely accurate.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
Hard for it to be misogynistic when "Laci" is a 50 year old male lawyer from PA.
ReplyDeleteAs for her fabricated accusations of anti-semitism, they are the sad, laughable attacks of a vile person with no class and no hope of engaging in a intelligent, reasoned discussion.
But I give people a lot of tolerance. You have long since used yours up, so most of your nasty superfluous nonsense gets deleted.
ReplyDeleteWhat "nasty superfluous nonsense" would that be?
You're being more than a little hypocritical here.
Notice that Laci (like Democommie) ran away once proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteFunny how you folks are so quick to jump on us, yet you clam up quick when called out and proven wrong.
mikey:
ReplyDeleteYou accuse others of engaging in the same behavior that you exhibit and you don't see that as hypricrisy?
Of course the alternative might be to NOT say things that you are not prepared to back up, such as your statement a while back about supporting gay rights as much as gun rights. You've yet to furnish any proof or an admission that it was a lie. But then you are the only person on this or any other blog who knows anything about guns, the law or how humans that disagree with you actually think.
Yeah, your words of scorn wound me, not.