Editor’s note: This commentary is by Eddie Garcia, a radio announcer who lives in St Johnsbury. He has long been blogging political issues in Vermont, generally from a left leaning perspective, and is a contributing editor at, and a founder of, Green Mountain Daily. He is also an administrator of Vermonters for the Second Amendment, a coalition of gun rights advocates.
On Oct. 21, the Burlington City Council will meet to discuss a number of anti-gun measures being proposed by the city Charter Change Committee. These include requiring a city issued permit to carry a concealed handgun within city limits, regulations mandating how private citizens must store their private property in their private homes, and perhaps most ominously, a prohibition on certain semiautomatic rifles arbitrarily designated as “assault weapons” by fiat of the City Council.
This last is in some ways the most troubling of all, as, were it enacted into law, it would represent the first time that the term “assault weapon,” an entirely political and contrived term with no meaning outside the political sphere coined by those who wish to further restrict your gun rights, acquires any legal standing in the state of Vermont.
Burlington’s Charter Change Committee discussed the issue of gun restrictions on at least four occasions. Interestingly, the minutes of three of those discussions were not posted for public review on the Charter Change Committee website and had to be requested by members of Vermonters for the Second Amendment, a coalition of gun rights advocates committed to keeping firearms laws in the state of Vermont as they are, whose advocacy was instrumental in seeing that no anti-gun measures were passed in Vermont in the first half of the legislative biennium.
The minutes in question are available for your review and can be downloaded from this link: http://bit.ly/19Bj2OW
They tell a rather interesting story. In attendance at the June 3 meeting, apparently by invitation, were representatives of GunSenseVT, a group of anti-gun activists.
A reading of the June 3 minutes reveals that GunSense is again rolling out the typical tropes of the gun control advocate. They essentially coil themselves into knots trying to demonstrate that despite empirical data to the contrary, Vermont really DOES have a “gun problem!”
A reading of the June 3 minutes reveals that GunSense is again rolling out the typical tropes of the gun control advocate. They essentially coil themselves into knots trying to demonstrate that despite empirical data to the contrary, Vermont really DOES have a “gun problem!”
GunSenseVT is affiliated with Moms Demand Action, which in turn receives support from billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), an organization which has recently seen an exodus from its membership by mayors who have said they were misled about the group’s intentions, realizing that the true aim of MAIG is to make legal guns illegal.
In addition, the minutes from the Charter Change Committee meeting of June 17 contain this interesting question from Councilor Ayres:
“Language to Shumlin:
This includes language from Gun Free (sic) VT
Ayres asks if it includes Bloomberg’s model that Weinberger presented? Siegel agreed.”
Four Vermont mayors are members of MAIG: Thom Lauzon of Barre, John Hollar of Montpelier, Christopher Louras of Rutland and Miro Weinberger of Burlington.
The June 3 minutes also reveal the attitude of GunSense toward firearms in general, despite its protestations that it is not an anti-gun group:
“[Vince] Brennan asked about the gun manufacturing business, Century Arms, in Franklin County and the jobs it provides. [Marie] Adams [of GunsenseVT] said it’s a moral question, and do we really need that type of business? Shouldn’t we try to develop other industries in that area?”
A “moral question”? And “do we need this business?”
This would give the lie to GunSense’s oft-repeated contention that it is not an anti-gun group, and is only invested in what it calls “common sense” and “reasonable” gun legislation. Clearly, the position of GunSense is that these inanimate objects of plastic, wood and steel are somehow innately immoral.
Don’t be fooled.
GunSense is indeed a virulently anti-gun group, and is here, supported by out-of-state interests such as Michael Bloomberg, to come after your rights and mine. As we see from Adams’ statement, they also stand ready to attack a Vermont business that employs Vermonters and is part of the economy of Franklin County.
The limitations proposed by GunSenseVT enjoy the support of Burlington City Council members Rachel Siegel and Norman Blais. Blais, in an interview with Fox44 TV back in January, was asked if the anti-gun measures he was looking at at the time were possibly unconstitutional.
He essentially replied that they probably were, but that he wasn’t concerned about that.
The issue of gun control to be taken up at the Oct. 21 council meeting was moved forward from its original date of Sept. 9.
Vermonters for the Second Amendment obtained this email, which tells why this action was taken:
From: Rachel Siegel [rsiegel@burlingtonvt.gov]
Date: September 3, 2013, 10:09:08 PM EDT
To: CityCouncil [CityCouncil@burlingtonvt.gov], Eileen Blackwood [eblackwood@burlingtonvt.gov], Miro Weinberger [miro@burlingtonvt.gov], Mike Kanarick [mike@burlingtonvt.gov]
Cc: “Shannon, Joan” [jshannon@burlingtontelecom.net]
Subject: Resolutions postponed
Hello colleagues,
At the urging of the GunSense Vermont organizers, we are putting the Charter Change resolutions on hold until early November. That will give them more time for the statewide strategies they are working on. It also means there’s plenty of time for questions and suggestions. Please feel free to tell us what you think.
On behalf of the Charter Change Committee,
Rachel Siegel
Ward 3 City Councilor
And there you have it. The issue was postponed at the behest of GunSenseVT to give the group time to work on its statewide strategies.
So in case you were wondering why you should concern yourself with municipal measures in Burlington — now you know.
Changes to the municipal charter of any Vermont municipality require the approval of the state Legislature. Gun control measures adopted in Burlington would be enacted in the face of Vermont statute VSA 24 § 2295. Even if passed by the Legislature, any laws regulating firearms in Burlington — or any other Vermont municipality — would clearly violate state law, and would certainly be challenged at every judicial level up to and including the Supreme Court of Vermont.
I urge you to take action. I urge you to send a clear message that Michael Bloomberg, his henchmen, and their agenda against the rights of law-abiding gun owners are not wanted or needed in Vermont.
Here’s what you can do:
- Attend the Burlington City Council meeting on Oct. 21 and voice your opposition to the proposed charter change.
- Contact your state legislators and insist that they vote against any requests for an anti-gun charter change in the city of Burlington, should they come before the Legislature, and tell them that you will oppose their re-election if they vote in favor of allowing these changes.
- Write to Gov. Shumlin and urge him to reiterate his past-stated opposition to any changes to Vermont gun laws.
- Write to the four Vermont mayors who are members of MAIG and urge them to renounce any affiliation with that organization.
- Join Vermonters for the Second Amendent on Facebook to stay apprised of the latest developments in this matter.
Article 16 of the Vermont State Constitution reads:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
What the Burlington City Council — and GunSenseVT — essentially seek to do is exempt that city’s residents from the protections of their right to keep and bear arms provided by the Vermont State Constitution and state statute — and provide a model to enact such exemptions elsewhere in the state.
It was recently proven in the state of Colorado that all Bloomberg’s money cannot buy his agenda without penalty, as two anti-gun state senators were recalled and removed from office, despite being grossly outspent by the anti-gun, anti-recall forces (which included $350,000 from Michael Bloomberg’s coffers) and a turnout at the polls where Democrats outnumbered Republicans by about 2 to 1.
If you think there is no credible threat to Vermonters’ gun rights, look at anti-gun legislation passed in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado and now in California, and think again.
Defend your rights, or you may find that, at the behest of a billionaire mayor of New York City, you do not have them anymore.
Tell Michael Bloomberg and his henchmen (and henchwomen) that his money and his MAIG are not wanted or needed here.
