The Situation in Vermont

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com...-legislation-where-proposals-stand/389013002/

This is a touch old but reading elsewhere

http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Vermont-House-begins-debate-on-gun-bill-478080883.html

The bill, S.55, includes several new, significant restrictions. It raises the legal purchasing age to 21, expands background checks to private sales, bans bump stocks and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...

I naively though of VT as gun heaven. I guess not. It does show that state bans even in supposedly gun friendly states are a real threat. Given what happened with SCOTUS not dealing with such, expect such to expand.

The laws have a great deal of surface validity to a general public unfamiliar with the issues as well as those already opposed to gun rights.

An effective strategy to turn this around (as we have discussed, sometimes acromoniously) is not looming on the horizon.
 
A poison pill amendment? If the new laws are not effective at preventing ______ or reducing specific crime to ________ by a particular date they shall be nullified as too onerous to stand while being ineffective.

Any precedent?
 
Vermont is a little shady - without going too deep into that, ie Bernie :)..

Speaking of the northeast though when a state has "Live Free or Die" on the license plate - that's one I think you count on :)..

The whole age thing, I wrote at least a couple pieces on it through high school & college, maybe a few. Drives me nuts, is something we really ought to straighten out once and for all..

Drive at 16, adult at 18 and can join the military and take part in most adult things, buy booze at 21 (or probably weed now too I guess?).. But if you negligently run over somebody and kill them at 16, well suddenly you have gained the full adult mental capacity to be charged as an adult for your crime. If we want to make it 21 really ought to be 21 across the board - if you aren't adult enough to buy booze (or own a gun) then I guess you shouldn't be able to join the military or go to prison either.
 
The magazine capacity ban has me :( Although I've read that lever-actions and bolt-actions are exempt from it, which raises an interesting conundrum, because there are lever-actions that take AR magazines and even bolt-actions ARs, so such magazines I am assuming them are not illegal to possess, just illegal to use in a semiautomatic rifle.
 
riffraff said:
Speaking of the northeast though when a state has "Live Free or Die" on the license plate - that's one I think you count on
Click to expand...
Don't count on it. My sister lives in New Hampshire, and so does the sister-in-law of a good friend. The southern part of New Hampshire is within commuting range of Boston and is rapidly becoming less New Hampshire and more North Massachusetts. And, just as escaping Californians brought their liberal notions to Oregon and Seattle, the Massachusetts escapees are bringing their liberal notions to formerly conservative New Hampshire. They haven't fully taken over the legislature yet, but there is a real dichotomy now between the southern and northern parts of the state.
 
Salmoneye said:
Scott has repeatedly left himself an 'out' by stating that he needs to have his chief council (lawyers) sign off on the bill before he signs it...

"Scott says he will sign all three bills into law after his attorneys review the legislation for possible technical errors."

https://vtdigger.org/2018/03/30/upda...assage-senate/
Click to expand...

From the link:

Protesters were handed nearly 1,200 high-capacity magazines, which hold 30 rounds of ammunition. A standard-capacity magazine holds around 10 rounds, according to Congressionalsportsmen.org, though this can vary.
Click to expand...
WRONG! "Standard" capacity for an AR-15 is arguably a 30-round magazine, and has been for decades. A 10-round magazine isn't standard, it's "reduced capacity." The author misrepresented what Congressionalsportsmen.org said.

Also from the link at Congressionalsportsmen.org:

Some state laws, created after the 1993 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, limit the number of rounds a magazine can legally hold, generally to ten or less. Such restrictions come at high costs to firearm manufactures and consumers, with little to no evidence indicating a reduction in crime.
Click to expand...
 
1. The ineffectiveness of previous laws is noted by antigunners. The argument is that existing stocks are sufficient to supply folks who want the item for a very long time. That is why some of them argue for confiscation. Thus, the studies are a double edged sword. The gun world says bans are useless. The antigun world says they need to be draconian.

2. About lever actions, pumps, blah, blah. Making the argument that they are equally dangerous. Cowboy Ed BangBang can shoot a lever action gun so fast that ....

Ok - ban them too. You think you made the case for your AR because of Cowboy Ed. NO, you just made the case for banning Cowboy Ed's guns. See Australia.

As Joe Scarborough (a self-proclaimed Conservative - now under the power of Mika) said (a touch of a paraphrase) - I don't need a clip of 30 cop killer bullets to go hunting with my son!

BTW, someone want to say that 5 is enough and mock as nuts those who want to carry a higher cap gun? Remember those threads?
 
I don't mind the people claiming 5 rounds is enough, so long as its a civil discussion and not a rant. Nor do I mind the guy who calculated he needed to carry at least 26 rnds, in order to get the 3-4 COM hits needed....

I really DO mind the people who#1) say that if you don't do what they recommend you're going to die, die DIE!!! :eek::rolleyes:

but what really ticks me off, are all those idiots (and that's the kindest word I can think of) that, whether involved in shooting or not, decide that they have the legal and moral authority to decide what you and I need, and make illegal anything they don't think we need.

Or, more accurately, make illegal what ever it is that they don't like, or that scares them, and hen claim we don't need it...so its ok to ban it by law...

The ONLY place they ever apply that rational seems to be about guns, and never about anything else, especially if its something they have and enjoy in their own personal lives.

Apply that exact same logic to anything else, and the best you'll get from them is that "deer in the headlights" blank look. Or a complete rejection of the idea because "guns are different" or "that's not the same"...

Try telling one of them they don't need fancy coffee, so we should pass a law closing down all the Starbucks, and see what you get for a response. Every once in a while, you'll get the best one, "well, my coffee never killed anyone!!"

To which I reply, "right, and neither has my 30rnd magazine!"

Telling me the way I ought to live, and what I should and shouldn't own is ok, its your opinion, and I'm free to ignore it at my peril.

Making your opinion a law is a completely different matter.

lack of "Need" as a reason for making ownership of a spring loaded metal or plastic box a crime, if it exceeds a certain arbitrary size, is simply a stupid argument. Or its arrogance on a grand scale.

After all, what are human needs?? After enough calories to prevent starvation, and enough shelter/clothing to prevent death from exposure, everything else in our lives, since mankind began, is wants, not needs.

I want to be well fed and comfortable, but as long as I survive, I don't need to be. And so long as I harm no one, I want to own what I want, not what anyone else tells me I don't need.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
1. The ineffectiveness of previous laws is noted by antigunners. The argument is that existing stocks are sufficient to supply folks who want the item for a very long time. That is why some of them argue for confiscation. Thus, the studies are a double edged sword. The gun world says bans are useless. The antigun world says they need to be draconian.
Click to expand...

What do the antigunners typically say about there being easier access to guns in the past before all the anti-gun laws were piled on?
 
The antigun laws were ineffective, again, because they did not really impact access.

That's what I said. So access was a non-issue. Confiscation and mandatory buy-backs would have to be part of their program.

Even now, some realize that some suggestions are just cosmetic and push for the confiscation.

Would it get every gun - no. But that's where they want to go.
 
How does a magazine ban even work? If I have 3 drum magazines, what do I have to do, turn them in or destroy them without being compensated.
 
Did anyone read the ban in detail? I read from press releases the mag ban was on the sale of such mags, to me sounded more of a gesture (albeit a terrible one) that would not actually ban ownership or use.

As far as southern NH goes , having MA next door is scary but the majority who move here tend to be looking to escape the police state. Our gun laws have been relaxed lately, but you are right there is always a looming threat.
 
The ONLY place they ever apply that rational seems to be about guns, and never about anything else, especially if its something they have and enjoy in their own personal lives.

Apply that exact same logic to anything else, and the best you'll get from them is that "deer in the headlights" blank look. Or a complete rejection of the idea because "guns are different" or "that's not the same"...
Click to expand...

Yep I agree . I just wrote back to my rep in response to there reply to my letter asking them not to support any gun control laws . In there reply they pointed out that 30,000 people die a year do to guns . My response was to point out how that number breaks down . With out getting to deep into what I wrote , I brought that 30k number down to 200 . How did I get to 200 . I based that on the types of guns they want to ban and how many of THOSE TYPES are used in gun related deaths every year .

My point was if this was really about saving lives they would ban handguns not assault rifles . I then took it a few more steps and asked why I don't see them holding press conferences about the 200,000 deaths that occur every year do to medical malpractice or mistakes made in hospitals . If they were to put even half the effort into stopping those they could save many thousands of lives rather then the 200 they MAY save by banning "assault weapons " .

But wait there's more . In 2016 , 10,947 people were killed and an untold amount injured as a direct result of alcohol involved incidents . Hmm seems to me if they really wanted to "SAVE LIVES" They could save 11k a year tomorrow by banning alcohol . There's nothing in the constitution saying you shall not infringe upon my beer and wine so It seems like a no brainer , lets save some thousands of lives people . No no lets just stick to the 200 we might save by banning assault weapons .

This has never been about saving lives . If it were they'd be doing much more to save them . I don't see it any different then the anti's simply saying those 200 lives we "MIGHT" save are more important then the several thousand we choose to ignore . Dare I say it , " don't all lives matter"

So until I see the "whom ever" trying to save all lives with equal effort . I will not trust them to save any of them .
 
Last edited:
RiffRaff:
Speaking of the northeast though when a state has "Live Free or Die" on the license plate - that's one I think you count on ..
Click to expand...

In the past that was very much true. However, as a society, we've moved in the direction where civilian possession of firearms is no longer considered an essential leg of the Liberty stool. People now look to the police and politicians to provide their security, even in the face of growing distrust of the police due to the Black Lives Matter movement. Unfortunately, too many people are of the opinion that no one needs a firearm to provide for their own security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top