Gun Owners of Vermont

What do you call a person who makes a living off the sportsmen but is constantly fighting against sportsmen’s rights? I can think of quite a few but hypocrite is one that comes to mind. David Deen is that person. He is a professional fishing guide in southern Vermont, however his anti-sportsman history leaves much to be desired.

In February of 2007, David Deen, the current chairman of the Vermont House Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resource Committee held hearings in the middle of the worst snow storm Vermont has seen in years. Many committee members were absent and many sportsmen groups were not invited to speak. The bill pertaining to the hearing was H.59 titled :An Act Relating to Hunting with a Firearm While Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs:. This bill would make it a felony violation if you’re caught hunting while on prescription drugs or have a blood alcohol content of .08. This felony would also prohibit a person from possessing a firearm or ammunition for the rest of their lives. It takes three convictions of driving under the influence to make it a felony. Why is this bill so severe when no people have been killed by an intoxicated hunter? Does Deen believe this is a fair and just law? He must!

During the 2005-2006 legislative session, David Deen tried to amend H.447 :The Shooting Range Protection Bill”. This amendment would have made the bill useless causing even more fish and game clubs to be shut down. His amendment was so bad he couldn’t get five cosponsors to agree with it.

In 1998, there was an amendment on the House floor to make it illegal for Vermont law enforcement to do the Brady background checks. David Deen killed it by a procedural move.

During 1987-1988, David Deen was a Senator from Windham County. He introduced two bills, which thankfully, never saw any action. The first one was S.276 titled “An Act Relating to Purchase of Handguns”. It outlined some very anti-gun ideas. For instance, you would need permission from the state to buy a firearm! There would be a 7-20 day waiting period before obtaining written approval. Your name, age, address, height, weight, eye color, hair color, occupation, social security number, birth place, and any information pertaining to the gun would be recorded and kept by the state instead of just the gun dealer. This included PRIVATE sales, too. There would be a $1000.00 fine for all noncompliance.

The second bill was S.!9 “ An Act Relating to the Illegal Use and Purchase of Firearms”. This was almost exactly the same as S.276 but included long arms and had a provision that children under the age of 16 could not be in possession of a pistol or revolver. How can Vermont’s future sporting generations expect to enjoy the great outdoors with someone such as David Deen trying to kill the ideals and traditions of Vermont’s past generations? Why is he the chair of what is suppose to be a pro-sportsmen committee when his actions show otherwise? Please call Speaker of the House Gay Symington at 800-322-5616 and ask to have him removed from his position as chairman.

Also, please keep in mind when choosing a guide from Orvis: who would you like to support that supports you?

Myths about guns are truly deadly
By JOHN STOSSEL
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=62176

GUNS are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.
"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.
Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.
I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."
"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."
Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.
A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."
What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"
In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.
Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.
And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment — "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" — as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.
What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Give Me a Break."

From the Burlington Free Press:

My Turn: Don't be too eager to give up the right to bear arms
By Jessica Collins May 19, 2007

I am disgusted by the number of Americans who are happy to give up their constitutional rights as law-abiding citizens. The same people who are upset about the illegal wire-tapping are the same ones who are pushing for the government to take away everyone's guns.
What happened to your precious Constitution? You want the right to free speech, but feel fine giving the government the right to tell you if you can or cannot have a gun. Why are the first, third or fourth amendments any more important than the second? The founding fathers made it the Second Amendment for a reason. People in this country have been well trained to be victims and to not stand up for your rights or for what you believe in. If you do not want to have a gun in your home, don't have one. Why is it anybody else's decision if I can own a gun? I do not force my beliefs on anyone because I believe that adults should have the right to make their own decisions.
It is illegal to murder a person right now. What makes you think that taking guns away from legal gun owners is going to stop criminals from obtaining them? Stop taking the blame away from the criminals and putting it on their weapons. Criminals do not abide by laws so all that will happen is that the law-abiding citizen will be rendered defenseless. The criminals know this and use it to their advantage.
Simply look at the statistics; places like New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, and DC have very strict gun laws and they have some of the highest rates of crime in the country. Vermont, with its very lax gun laws, has very low crime rates. Wasn't it published recently that we are the second-safest state in the nation? I've heard people say that this is because there are no gangs here in Vermont; sounds to me like a gang problem and not a gun problem. The fact is, the criminals do not know who may be carrying so they don't bother people. I feel a whole lot safer walking down the streets of Burlington with their "careless" gun laws than I do walking down the streets of New York City.
Lastly, the fact that some countries in Great Britain and Europe do not allow its citizens to own guns does not make those countries safer. I do not know where people get their statistics from; violent crime in London has been on the rise for years after banning handguns.
Remember, guns do not take rights away from anybody, like Klopfenstein wrote in his article, ("Massacre shows it's time to get guns off the streets," April 27) the criminals using the guns do.
Jessica Collins lives in Essex.

EDITORIAL

Gun control is a term that belongs on the range as a parallel term for muzzle control, not in the halls of the legislative bodies. But with the support of some alleged sportsman’s groups, we get a steady drumbeat of the “need” for gun control. So let’s pick this thinking apart and see if it has any merit at all for free people living under the American Constitution.

What exactly is freedom? Let’s look at the root word “free” to understand. Since it is the law that concerns us, we turn to Blacks Law Dictionary where we discover that free means “Not subject to legal constraint of another”. “Unconstrained; having power to follow dictates of own will”. And “freedom” is defined as, “The state of being free; liberty; self determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery”.

Clearly then, to be free, one has the right of self determination without any constraints. So then, by what legal fiction does any legislative body presume to diminish the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where it says in clear plain language, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? The answer, of course, is not even by legal fiction can such plain language be jettisoned in favor of any constraint on the right to keep and bear arms. It is clearly an unconstitutional abuse of power to constrain such a fundamental right.

Some folks, even in the shooting sports community cleave to the notion that some violent or potentially violent persons should not be allowed to have a gun. Think about that for a moment and ask yourselves if those persons should be denied the right to defend themselves if someone seeks to do them injury or even kill them. If you answer yes, you do not believe in the equal protection of the laws, an important cornerstone of freedom.

Now, of course, we are going to hear, “but preemption is key to prevention”. Rubbish! Under American justice, you can have all the evil thoughts you want as long as you do not carry them into execution. If you do carry them into execution, you are then accountable to the law for the harm you do. The really sharp gun control advocate is going to then claim that our laws concerning terrorists can’t be constitutional either. Wrong! Conspiracy to commit terrorist acts is an exception and really has no bearing on gun control. This is particularly true when it involves foreign nationals here illegally or even legally because their stated intent to commit terrorist acts and they are conspiring to carry that into execution. A domestic terrorist acting alone presents a different problem because until he commits that act, there is likely no crime, unless it is an explosive devise violation or a dangerous substance violation such as radioactive or pathogenic substances.

Now why is the right to keep and bear arms so important? Try self protection as the leading reason, and especially for carrying a concealed firearm. It is well documented that firearms stop more crimes than there are crimes committed with firearms. The average time for getting police to respond is so extended that you could be a dead victim long before any police could be there. Moreover, the true function of the police is to enforce the laws, which translated means investigating and capturing the offender. So the free and unconstrained person can have a firearm and protect themselves by exercising his self determination to do so.

Finally, we must have a few words about a troubling development in law enforcement. Beyond the fact that there is never a cop nearby when you need one, there is the reality of competence when you do get one. The evidence is startling with regard to training and marksmanship skills being deplorable for the vast majority of our officers. But the problem is far worse because the training is not providing the use of the baton that the older cops learned to use so effectively for disarming and securing deranged persons and drunks without undue harm to them.

Instead, today we are seeing the beanbag shot from a 12 gage and more recently stun guns that deliver over 50,000 volts of electricity to the target with devastating results. Both of these devices are potentially lethal and too often used. The bean bag is dangerous because it does not fly in a regular manner and may strike the person in a vulnerable area that would kill them. The stun gun is being promoted by the feds, but 50,000 volts kills some people. While these devices may have very limited applications, the facts are less than two dozen of our state police are even qualified to use them. County and municipal police have far fewer if any trained police.

One solution for qualifying our police might be to have them qualify twice a year with our game wardens in their program. Every game warden and deputy game warden is a very good marksman and if they were to use the beanbags or the stun guns, it is very likely they would be trained in the appropriate use of them.

In any event, the issue of gun control seeming extends to the folks with a badge and a gun. If we are to have any gun control, it ought to be for the officers that we should be able to rely on for a very high degree of competence, and not to ordinary folks. That is what freedom is all about.

They will be held at Denny’s Restaurant on Rt. # 7 in Rutland at 1:00 P.M. Please try to attend as this is your organization and we need your input.

(H477 The Range Protection Bill) was passed into law last session. When written, it seemed like a good Bill, except for a few things which we wanted them to define or change. We wanted an exemption from Act 250 for gun ranges and we wanted them to define “vicinity”. After the hearings in the House Fish & Wildlife Committee, they passed the House floor and went into the Senate Judiciary Committee. We talked to Dick Sears, the Chair of the Committee, who told us the Bill probably wouldn’t see any action. Along comes Vince Illuzzi, who picks up the Bill and runs with it. He completely changed the Bill and made it a thousand times better, wrangled the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and Dick Sears made sure we were invited to sit in on them.

The Bill was brought down to the Senate and was passed. It was then sent over to the House where the Senate version was passed. During the House floor debate, David Dean of Westminster tried to add an anti-gun amendment to the Bill, but he couldn’t even get a second on it! Thanks to Vince Illuzzi and Dick Sears, we have a law that improves on the original law, although it’s not perfect. We will talk to them this Session about adding the exemption to Act 250, which the Secretary explains in more depth in her report.

The Precision Valley Fish and Game Association in Perkinsville, Vt. has a beautiful outdoor shooting range which is the topic of this discussion. Sometime during the early 1980’s the neighbors that had a noise issue with the club made a written agreement after coming to a compromise about shooting events. Basically, it stated that they would stop complaining to the state and town authorities.

In the fall of 2006, Precision Valley received a letter from the Act 250 Commission. It seems the same neighbors that signed this agreement have contacted the commission to help them shut down the Precision Valley shooting range. Act 250 wanted to know 1) if the club had expanded (membership has actually decreased) 2) who the exact ownership is (same as its inception) and 3) to see if the club has changed environmentally (which it has not).

The Commission is on a fishing expedition due to a very small handful of people who live over ½ mile away. Incidentally, all the neighbors in the immediate vicinity have no complaints! Precision Valley Fish and Game Association has responded to the Act 250 Commission stating that absolutely nothing has changed.

See, folks, if this goes to hearing, it will be the club that has to pay a lawyer, not the complainers. The club will be financially strapped. It’s just a sneaky way to close down yet another shooting range.

The Gun Owners of Vermont will be working diligently to fix the range protection bill, mainly by exempting gun ranges from Act 250.

Congratulations to the winner of our raffle. Steve Down Jr. or Rutland won a XP 100 for only a dollar!

We are sorry the Hartland Gun Show will be closing their doors after 20 years of service.

A big thank-you to the Harris family for their many years’ devotion to the gun

The evolution of evil is often not obvious until the evil touches one directly. But for the astute, something very evil is now apparent and terrifying in the way it devalues human beings. We had fair warning of impending problems with training, policy and procedure when a victim of a mental disorder was shot in a church while armed only with a knife. Then we had a bizarre shooting in a police station with a person voluntarily being finger printed and allegedly pulling a knife on the officer. The biggest alert came in the form of awards for police that apparently followed directions and training which resulted in the death of yet one more troubled Vermont citizen.

Joseph Fortunati was camped on private property a couple of hundred yards from a logging road (Copper Mine Road was misidentified as a class IV road on that portion of the road). Joseph had apparently been neglecting to take his medications for diagnosed mental illness. A non-violent altercation occurred between Joseph and some EPA staff on Monday. On Friday, apparently the state police had been called after another group of EPA staff had accosted Joseph. The EPA staff sought to discover facts regarding the status of the road and the ownership of where Joseph was camped at the Town Clerk’s office, where Susan Fortunati works (Joseph’s step-mother). She recognized that the vehicle the EPA reported seeing on Copper Mine Road was Joseph’s. This resulted in a dialogue between Susan Fortunati and the police who arrived before the EPA staff left the Town Clerk’s office.

Susan offered that Robert, the father would talk to Joseph. The police demanded that they be informed of the progress within two to three hours. Susan advised Robert of the situation and Robert then went to the police barracks to offer that he and two of his sons would try to move Joseph onto some Fortunati land nearby in the morning (Saturday), to which the police agreed but insisting that they be kept informed. Saturday Robert and the family did try to talk to Joseph resulting in Joseph pulling a gun on his father. Robert reported to the police what had transpired and advised them that the situation needed to be handled very gently as Joseph had mental issues. Robert was given the impression that the police would work with the family to devise a plan together. That did not happen.

The Vermont State police became impatient and responded to Joseph’s camp site at 7 PM with a SWAT team and proceeded in a twelve minute confrontation to pelt Joseph with shotgun fired beanbag rounds and commands yelled at him to surrender. After twelve minutes of abusive treatment amounting to assault and battery to his confused mind, he went to his car to get a gun to defend himself. Once the gun was in hand, a trooper yelled, “Gun”. That immediately caused two SWAT members to fire, killing Joseph. See the Attorney General’s web site confirming the twelve minutes SWAT was on site. http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?pubsec=4&curdoc=1214 It is noteworthy that neither Joseph’s Clara Martin Center counselor nor the Bradford constable, both of whom had a good relationship with Joseph were asked by the police to talk to Joseph, despite the Fortunati’s suggesting that possibility.

The Orange County State’s Attorney and the Vermont Attorney General investigated. Their investigations proved to be something of a sham because they simply concluded that the SWAT team believed they were in danger of death or serious bodily injury. After being accosted with such harsh behavior, instead of being simply arrested, a perfectly rational man might well react to defend himself from black clad people with painted faces. Indeed, the facts, as disclosed by the Attorney General’s report, appear to indicate that it was not until after twelve minutes of provocation that Joseph went to his car to get a gun. But there is no emphasis about the provocation by the SWAT team in the Attorney General’s report. The question is why was this report not balanced to show that there was severe provocation and that during the first twelve minutes of the confrontation Joseph was not armed and could easily have been taken into custody?

First, we must recognize that SWAT was on the scene on direct orders of someone in the management chain of command and they were following the training, policy and procedure the command structure provided. Clearly that was the case because the officers were recognized with citations at a ceremony that, according to media reports, the command structure did not want publicized. If the actions of SWAT were truly fitting and proper, why did the command structure seek to hide the commendations? The only possible conclusion is that the command structure knew that the action taken was wrong. That brings us back to why the Attorney General’s report and his duty were failures.

The Dwinell Political Report interviewed the Attorney General on the subject. Attorney General Sorrell defended his actions. "I am the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Vermont. But my role as such is limited to 'counsel and assist.' In my investigations, I was limited to finding whether there was a violation of the criminal laws, if a murder charge was warranted or manslaughter. The action of the law enforcement, while tragic, did not come close to a charge of murder or manslaughter.

The Attorney General is not a constitutional office, but rather one created by statute. Title 3 § 152 defines his authority. The attorney general may represent the state in all civil and criminal matters as at common law and as allowed by statute. The attorney general shall also have the same authority throughout the state as a state’s attorney. That is considerably more authority than a role limited to “counsel and assist”. Worse, it does not relieve him of the duty to report faithfully and he could hardly fail to conclude that there is a problem when police kill mentally disturbed citizens after provoking them to actions that could be construed as a perceived threat of death or serious bodily harm for the officers.

Again in the Dwinell Political Report the Attorney General is quoted. I did feel a sense of responsibility that there seemed to be a flaw in the training of law enforcement that allowed these situations to all end tragically. I was able to persuade both Governor Douglas and the legislature to support a $50,000 request for specific training relating to these tragedies. Why did Sorrell not say that in his report on the Fortunati Shooting? What legislators were informed of his opinion that there is a problem in police training? Did he suggest improvements in policy and procedure for the command structure or just training for the officers? Why was the additional funding concern not a part of the report?

The answers are transparently obvious. Sorrell regards protecting the state from civil actions as more important than his duty to the people who pay his salary because he would be obligated to defend the state. He also must have some predisposition to discount the life of the mentally challenged or he would have been more public in his opinion regarding the incident and likely would have concluded there was culpability on the part of the officers or the command structure or both. The fact that he did not shows great disdain for human life and a coarse disregard for the duty of the Attorney General. Finally, we must ask the question, is this something that should result in disciplinary action against Sorrell, either by the bar or by impeachment? Can Vermont afford to go down the path of state terrorism? Or is this just another page in the book of leniency for terrorism as we are seeing with our US Senator Leahy wanting to hold hearings to find wrongdoing by the US military in the treatment of captured terrorists? As a gun owner, I am concerned that my right to be left alone and to be able to protect myself will be impaired by government actions under the authority of people like Sorrell. I do not want the terror that is becoming pervasive in so many other countries to become commonplace in Vermont. I particularly do not want the state sponsored terrorism that this sort of whitewashing seems to imply. Joseph Fortunati should not have been killed by SWAT. Who is next if we do not correct the course?

Burlington Mayor Kiss is involved with an anti-gun movement that stems from Massachusetts claiming criminals are obtaining illegal firearms from ME, NH and VT. Officials investigating have found that to be untrue with the guns in question actually coming from Southern states. The question is, will the mayor be swayed by the facts?

Generally, we see several bills each year that are damaging to our firearms rights. While we have heard rumors, to date there is no legislation proposed that we need to be alerted about. That may change and if it does, we will be getting out an alert. The anti-gun crowd can’t be labeled partisan as every political party seems to have an anti-gun cadre.

It is in the record books now, Vermont had a very nice improvement in the harvest of virtually all the big game animals this year, but the deer and moose were certainly spectacular. If you have not been hunting in recent years, reconsider. It takes the support of all of us to encourage good management of our fish and wildlife.

Increasing interest in hunter safety is an important part of minimizing the attacks on our gun rights. When youngsters from single parent families take the course, the mother or father frequently takes the course as well. This wins us supporters, so it is a good idea to encourage the F&W Hunter Safety program in your town. If it is not available, call F&W and ask for the Hunter Safety folks. They can set you up with instructors to bring the program to your town. Or, consider becoming an instructor yourself. It is truly a rewarding experience to bring the joys of safe firearms handling to youngsters that will remember the things you teach them for life.

As President Ed has explained, we have monthly meeting for the state organization, but we have long been interested in starting chapters around the state to make participation easier for folks. If you are interested in starting a local chapter, please contact Ed or Karen at the phone numbers provided at the beginning of the newsletter.

As you doubtless know, Gun Owners of Vermont has only your dues for meeting the costs of fighting to protect our gun rights. We have tried to supplement this with an annual raffle with firearms being the prizes, but that is just not cost effective. So we are trying a daily 50-50 at the shows this year. Maybe you can’t afford to buy something that you would like at the shows, but you can afford $1 for a chance in the 50-50. The daily winner gets half the pot and that might be enough to buy what you wanted, but could not afford. Please consider this idea as a way to help the cause and a way to maybe get you some mad money.

Bill O’Reilly, the popular Fox News commentator on Christmas day shocked some of us by holding forth on favoring gun control. A popular rap artist was arrested for the third time on drug and possession of a firearm charges. O’Reilly was unconcerned about the drug matter, but opined that the man ought to be in jail for having a gun. Hey, O’Reilly, this is America where the 2^nd Amendment is still the supreme law of the land, despite some twisted ideas by some that “a well regulated militia” refers to the National Guard. No – no, it ain’t so. We are the well regulated militia that the founders referred to because they were opposed to any standing army, which is what the National Guard really is today. The notion then was what it was until the last few decades in Vermont, neighbor helping neighbor in any crisis, be it fire, flood or invasion. Government is a poor neighbor as towns with “wilderness” are noticing.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” —Patrick Henry

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." —George Washington

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." —Plato

VERMONT GUN OWNERS
GET HELP FINDING LAWS

MIDDLEBURY
03-22-05
For More Information:
Cindy Ellen Hill Esq. 802-388-1664
wordwomanvt@yahoo.com

Attorney Cindy Hill of Middlebury has just released
the Gun Owners Guide to the Laws of Vermont. The book
summarizes Vermont's weapons and firearms statutes in
one easy-to-read volume, with commentary and reference
to leading cases and the reasoning behind Vermont's
gun laws. Every Vermont gun owner -- be they a
hunter, handgunner, competition shooter, or
self-defense advocate -- can now locate Vermont's
scattered firearms and other weapons regulations
without paging through the thousands of pages of
Vermont statutes.

Gun owners all across America envy Vermont's practical
no-license-required firearms laws, referred to as
"Vermont Carry". Now Vermont gun owners and
out-of-staters can easily access the key provisions of
Vermont's laws pertaining to firearms in one efficient
book.

Cindy Hill practices law and writes in Middlebury,
Vermont. She is a life member of the NRA, Vermont
Outdoors Woman, Gun Owners of Vermont, and the
Sportsmen's Club of Franklin County. She is also the
author of Creative Lawyering, available at
XLibris.com, and an upcoming book from Paladin Press
regarding the law of Brady checks for firearm
purchases.

Hill is "best known as Vermont's Second Amendment
lawyer," according to the Champlain Business Journal,
and the "den mother of Vermont firearms rights"
according to Women and Guns magazine.

ORDERING INFORMATION:

The Gun Owners Guide to the Laws of Vermont is
available direct from Gun Owners of Vermont, or mail
check or money order, $12.95 for single copies, or
$75.00 for a sets of ten for resale or distribution,
to Cindy Hill, 144 Mead Lane, Middlebury VT 05753.

The self-published book is 51 pages, 8.5" X 11",
softcover. The first 100 only will be signed by the
author. Get yours quick!

GUN OWNERS GUIDE TO THE LAWS OF VERMONT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

CHAPTER 1: CONSTITUTIONS
A Quick Civics Review
United State Constitution
Vermont Constitution

CHAPTER 2: VERMONT WEAPONS LAWS
Vermont Weapons Laws
Self Defense

CHAPTER 3: GUN CRIMES AND PROBATION
Breach of Peace and Reckless Endangerment Impeding
and Disarming Law Enforcement Officers
Weapons and Probation
Explosives

CHAPTER 4: GAME LAWS AND SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS
Game Laws
Fish and Game Forfeitures
Posting
Gun Raffles
Private Hunting Preserves and Shooting Grounds
Shooting Range Protection

CHAPTER 5: MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL REGULATION
Schools and Firearms
Municipal Regulation

CHAPTER 6: LICENSING AND FORFEITURE
Professional Licenses
Gun Forfeiture
Guns as Abandoned Property

CHAPTER 7: FEDERAL LAW AND VERMONT

Act 250 hearing for Hale Mountain gun club packs Rutland conference room By LAURA RASKIN
Staff Writer
RUTLAND -- Attorneys for Shaftsbury's Hale Mountain Rod and Gun Club told the Vermont Environmental Board on Wednesday that the club has not made significant changes to its site since 1970 and should not be held to Act 250 criteria.
Club supporters packed half of a conference room at the Holiday Inn in Rutland, with some of its charter members testifying to activities at the club over the years.
"The only issue is whether the club has undergone substantial change. After you review the evidence, you will see that an Act 250 jurisdiction does not exist," said the club's attorney, James Goss.
The club opened in 1947 and has always been active, he said, with a mix of rifle, pistol and trap shooting taking place there.
But neighbors on Rod and Gun Club Road say the club should be held to Act 250's 10 criteria because of substantial changes, including increased shooting noise and adverse environmental effects. Those neighbors also appeared before the Environmental Board.
In July, District 8 Environmental Coordinator Warren Foster ruled that the club needed to apply for an Act 250 permit. The club appealed that decision and neighbors cross-appealed, prompting Wednesday's hearing.
Neighbors hope that when the board makes its decision in two months, it will uphold Foster's ruling.
Representing herself, neighbor Ann Dailey said her family purchased their home in 1980 for its secluded, peaceful environment.
"As time passed, things have changed and those changes are why we're here today," she said.
Stephen Reynes, lawyer for two other neighbors - Owen and Kathy Beauchesne and Ken and Mary Kennedy - told the board the club should be held to Act 250 jurisdiction because it made "recognizable, physical changes" that had a "significant impact."
Those changes include clearing trees and the addition of a garage, shot pavilions, a storage trailer and new technology, said Reynes.
No attention was paid to required buffer zones around Class II wetlands on the club's property either, he said.
Lorraine Mattison, another neighbor representing herself, testified that the addition of roofs onto the shooting sheds in the 1990s meant members could shoot more often in inclement weather.
"We've lost the enjoyment of our home and property," said Mattison. "Most summer days now we enjoy after dark."
Two of Hale Mountain's charter members - Henry Salem and Ralph Bevis - testified that they hadn't witnessed substantial changes to the club.
But in his cross-examination of current club Chairman James Logan, Reynes implied their septic system is not up to code and has caused undue water pollution.
"Ann Dailey smelled sewage north of the (caretaker's) trailer," said Reynes. Logan maintained he was not even sure where the septic tank was.
"I can't remember being in a case before where the person who owns the property says, 'We don't know where the septic system is,'" said Reynes during a break in the hearing. He planned to call a witness later in the afternoon who was a hydrogeologist and knew about septic system regulations, he said.
A crowd of Hale Mountain supporters and members who gathered in the motel lobby midway through the day said they did not understand why the hearing was taking place at all. Any changes they've made to the club have been for safety, they said. That group included club President Charlie Wells and former President Charles Stewart.
"You couldn't get Ralph Bevis or Henry Salem or anyone else who has testified this morning to lie about what they've said," said Paul Williams, who sits on the club's board of directors and has been shooting there since he was a boy in the 1960s.
After Wednesday's hearing, both sides can submit supplemental findings to the board. The board will probably deliberate in April and come out with a written decision after that, said board Chairwoman Patricia Moulton Powdon.