Vermont has pre-emption

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The recent ordinace attempting to strip people of their rights "passed" by the Hippies on the Burlington City Council will not be enacted, because it can't be. Fear not. The legislature will never approve the amendement that would be need to the city charter. Game over. Again. While the rest of you slept, the NRA worked overtime to pass such legislation all over the US to prevent just such nonsense.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Burlington city officials knowingly and blatantly

are acting to exceed their legal authority on a

"think globally, act locally" mission, an act to destroy

the three state statutes that protect the firearm,

hunting, fishing and trapping rights from being

regulated out of existence by the states towns and

cities. Which is exactly why these laws were enacted

and amended.

Please read them, become familiar with them.

When they are referred to as time goes by, you will

know exactly what they say and mean.

There will be a meeting of the Vermont Federation of

Sportsmen's Club in which the course of action of what

to do about this will be a leading topic.

Barre Fish & Game Club, at 10 AM on Sunday, January 13th.

The three state laws are down below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 § 2295. Authority of municipal and county governments to regulate firearms, ammunition, hunting, fishing and trapping

Except as otherwise provided by law, 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. This section shall not limit the powers conferred upon a town, city or incorporated village under section 2291(8) of this title. The provisions of this section shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of a municipal charter. (Added 1987, No. 178 (Adj. Sess.), eff. May 9, 1988.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 § 2291. Enumeration of powers

For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience, a town, city, or incorporated village shall have the following powers:

(8) To regulate or prohibit the use or discharge, but not possession of, firearms within the municipality or specified portions thereof, provided that an ordinance adopted under this subdivision shall be consistent with section 2295 of this title and shall not prohibit, reduce, or limit discharge at any existing sport shooting range, as that term is defined in 10 V.S.A. § 5227.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 § 5227. Sport shooting ranges; municipal and state authority

(a) "Sport shooting range" or "range" means an area designed and operated for the use of archery, rifles, shotguns, pistols, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting.

(b) The owner or operator of a sport shooting range, and a person lawfully using the range, who is in substantial compliance with any noise use condition of any issued municipal or state land use permit otherwise required by law shall not be subject to any civil liability for damages or any injunctive relief resulting from noise or noise pollution, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.

© If no municipal or state land use permit is otherwise required by law, then the owner or operator of the range and any person lawfully using the range shall not be subject to any civil liability for damages or any injunctive relief relating to noise or noise pollution.

(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit or limit the authority of a municipality or the state to enforce any condition of a lawfully issued and otherwise required permit.

(e)(1) In the event that the owner, operator, or user of a range is not afforded the protection set forth in subsection (b) or © of this section, this subsection shall apply. A nuisance claim against a range may only be brought by an owner of property abutting the range. The range shall have a rebuttable presumption that the range does not constitute any form of nuisance if the range meets the following conditions:

(A) the range was established prior to the acquisition of the property owned by the person bringing the nuisance claim; and

(B) the frequency of the shooting or other alleged nuisance activity at the range has not significantly increased since acquisition of the property owned by the person bringing the nuisance claim.

(2) The presumption that the range does not constitute a nuisance may be rebutted only by an abutting property owner showing that the activity has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the abutting property.

Prior to use of a sport shooting range after dark for purposes of training conducted by a federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, the sport shooting range shall notify those homeowners and businesses with property abutting the range that have requested such notice from the range.

(g) If any subsection of this section is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect the other subsections of this section that can be given effect without the invalid subsection, and for this purpose, the subsections of this section are severable. (Added 1991, No. 20; amended 2001, No. 61, § 71, eff. June 16, 2001; 2005, No. 173 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. May 22, 2006.)

___________________________________________________________________

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So... What?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So... What?

So the recent ordinance passed by the Burlington city council to ban "assault weapons" is, was, and always will be null and void. It was nothing more than children throwing toys out of the crib to get attention. Our anti-gun members here were all salivating over "Vermont" passing an assault weapons ban. (see thread on page 2 or 3)

It never happened, never will.

We are still the safest state.

[scotinmass 588]

So the recent ordinance passed by the Burlington city council to ban "assault weapons" is, was, and always will be null and void. It was nothing more than children throwing toys out of the crib to get attention. Our anti-gun members here were all salivating over "Vermont" passing an assault weapons ban. (see thread on page 2 or 3)

It never happened, never will.

We are still the safest state.

Sounds like you're getting a bit concerned.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

Sounds like you're getting a bit concerned.

sounds more like he's setting the record straight.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Sounds like you're getting a bit concerned.

What would I be concerned about? Vermont has pre-emption and the constitution allows cities ONLY the powers granted to them by the legislature. The legislature specifically reserves the power to regulate firearms, exactly for this reason. So that 6 people cannot strip the rights of 42,000 in order to get their name in the newspaper. I am not the least bit concerned because my rights are protected from people wishing to "make a statement" by taking them away. If the city council of Burlington wants to make a statement, they can get a sign and carry it around outside like everyone else.

AND they can carry a gun while doing it!

As I recall, YOU were the one that posted the original topic cheering on Burlington. Did you really think it was possible in Vermont? 40 states have pre-emption laws to prevent firearms laws being made by cities. Next time you see this kind of TMZ act by a city council, maybe check out the LAW and the State's CONSTITUTION before biting off on this nonsense.

[Darnell 8,478]

i have a spelling problem with ordinance. Something about gunpower and firepower and ammo, you know -ordinance !

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

i have a spelling problem with ordinance. Something about gunpower and firepower and ammo, you know -ordinance !

Spelling and gunpowder do not mix, well, actually they DO mix, but the result tastes awful!

[Darnell 8,478]

ordnance? ordinance? i dunno - i just likes my guns ! (no, I'm not kidding)

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

ordnance? ordinance? i dunno - i just likes my guns ! (no, I'm not kidding)

Bullets.

Hey...where are all the people that were so happy about Burlington's assault weapon law? <crickets chirpring>

Hellloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Darnell 8,478]

they had other threads here about it. I was surprised you not post in their threads, it has been 3 days, or more, and YES! Your name was used in a sentence, by others, in a malicious fashion.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

they had other threads here about it. I was surprised you not post in their threads, it has been 3 days, or more, and YES! Your name was used in a sentence, by others, in a malicious fashion.

I wanted to give them time to look completely foolish. We in Vermont knew what this was. Collective <YAWN>

The anti-gun orgasms (or-dinance-gasms?) were funny to read, too bad they were all fake.

They stopped posting in those threads too. Cam you even imagine?

Edited January 13, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Darnell 8,478]

Ya, good form, Gary !!!

It sucks for them, not to get you engaged ... in one of their 'hot' topics.

w00t!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hey...where are all the people that were so happy about Burlington's assault weapon law? <crickets chirpring>

Hellloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I don't know. Probably just living their lives not really giving two shits about what some village in Vermont is or isn't doing. Just my guess. That little congregation in the woods up north you guys call your state isn't really all that relevant to most people, you know? It just really isn't. I get it, you're looking for attention. Maybe Alla can spare some?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

So I just read the law posted above which, as posted, is concerned primarily with shooting ranges. The crux appears to be in 28 § 2291(8). It seems that municipalities can "regulate or prohibit the use or discharge" of firearms, if not possession. So theoretically Burlington, while prevented from regulating possession of firearms, can ban the use or discharge of firearms. In practice this would probably be more symbolic than anything else, but the distinction can be made.