Brady Score Card of Vermont Gun Laws.
We scored 8 out of a possible 100 points.
Of course, the Brady Bunch isn't saying that
the states with their lowest scores have the
lowest crime rates and the states with their
highest rating have the highest crime rates.
=
RAFFLE
Due to the great reponse we had last year,Gun Owners of Vermont is raffling off another Springfield Armory,model 1911,45 caliber pistol.Tickets are $5.00 each or 6 for $25.00.You can get tickets at our table at the Morrisville,Rutland,Lyndon Center and Chester gun shows or by sending a check or money order to Gun Owners of Vermont, P.O. Box 753, Bellows Falls, Vt. 05101.Five dollars for a brand new 45 is quite a deal!
UPDATE ON H484
Due to the lobbying efforts of Gun Owners of Vermont and other pro-gun groups of Vermont and due to all the phone calls from concerned gun owners throughout the state,H484 has been amended to provide an exemption for lead products pertaining to hunting and fishing.(Originally this bill proposed to require the secretary of natural resources to establish a toxic chemical identification and reduction program in which lead could have been targeted.)
Another disturbing feature of H484 was found on page 7 stating that if a certain chemical is banned in another state then it automatically becomes law here. This was also changed to read "it could be recommended" that Vermont would do the same.
Once again,thank you to all who took the time to call Montpelier. Phone calls make a difference!!
View H737 Feb.24,2010
Crimes;weapons;negligent storage of a firearm.
This bill is currently in the Judiciary committee in Montpelier. It would make it mandatory to lock up all firearms if any child under the age of 18 could have access to them. It would be a criminal offence if a child obtained access to a firearm and discharged it. The owner would face imprisonment and a fine up to 10,000. This bill takes the responsibility out of parents' hands and places the burden on all the citizens of Vermont.The term "children" also applies to teenagers some of whom are excellent hunters, participate in junior shooting programs, and are very responsible with their guns.
This bill also invites criminal activity by announcing that the people of Vermont will have to unlock their guns before defending themselves and their families. Please call Speaker of the House,Shap Smith, at 1-800-322-5616 and tell him NO on H737.
Gun Owners Of Vermont
The NRA: Friend of Freedom, or Foe of Firearms?
by Alex R. Knight III
February 8, 2008
From a recent solicitation letter I received from the National Rifle Association in order to increase membership, I excerpt the following quote: "We actively work to fight anti-gun media bias by encouraging law-abiding gun owners like you to stand tall and defend our freedoms without apology or compromise."
For our purposes, let's set aside the misnomer of defending freedom while remaining "law-abiding." Thoreau, I suspect, among others – myself included – might have had a thing or two to say about that all by itself. It is also arguable that from a Voluntaryist standpoint, being a member of any organization that actively lobbies government in any form is counterproductive and antithetical to freedom. Insofar as this is true, I must admit that for several years I have been a member of Gun Owners of America, which prides itself on being "the only no-compromise gun lobby." In all the time I've been a member, I've seen nothing to dissuade me from the contention that the staff at GOA are genuine in this assertion. It's what, in part, makes the aforementioned quote from the NRA so breathtaking. Let's have a look at some additional recent events:
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, Congress ginned up the so-named "Veterans Disarmament Act." This bill, in essence, expanded the infamous Brady background check law. To anyone who knows anything about government, this should come as no surprise. What is shocking is that this bill had the full backing and blessings of the NRA. In fact, the NRA staff worked very closely with none other than Senator Chuck Schumer and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy – both long-time and rabid attackers of gun ownership – in order to get the bill passed. To quote Schumer in speaking with the Associated Press on September 27, 2007 , he said: "When the NRA and Chuck Schumer agree, that tells you it's something worth doing."
Here's something just as maddening. Congressman John D. Dingell, in actually speaking before an NRA audience, told the assembled crowd, "In times of great stress, it is permissible to walk side by side with the devil to get to the other side of the bridge." In so saying, he was quoting his self-proclaimed "hero," Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had originally made the statement in defense of working hand in hand with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in World War II.
But here's the kicker, the thing that should make everyone stand up and take notice. In a letter from Iloilo Marguerite Jones of the Fully Informed Jurors Association (FIJA) to Larry Pratt, Executive Director of GOA, published in the Winter 2007 issue of American Juror, in which Ms. Jones refers to a recently produced FIJA jury nullification brochure focusing on gun rights, she had the following to say: "Because you, Larry, had the courage to distribute this brochure, other groups, knowing you had done so, have been distributing the brochure as well, including Liberty Belles and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership [sic]). NRA has ignored our offers and correspondence regarding the brochure, which we offered to provide them to mail to their entire membership, more than once" (italics are mine).
I first received a copy of the brochure in question because of my GOA membership. It is of the highest possible quality, and upon subsequently contacting Ms. Jones to congratulate her for having done such an outstanding job, she graciously provided me with a large quantity of the brochures, and has subsequently sent me even more jury nullification materials at no cost to myself. So I can arrive at no other conclusion than this: The NRA, for all of its hyperbole, does not even want its own membership to be aware of the concept of jury nullification, even when an innocent gun owner may be standing in the dock. I can think of no legitimate excuse for that kind of behavior from a gun rights organization that claims to encourage defending freedom "without apology or compromise." None. Can you?
I must admit that, as a Voluntaryist, I remain a GOA member not to engage government, but because I enjoy staying informed, and also as an insurance policy: GOA has been known on numerous occasions to assist its members who run afoul of government thugs. Not just in high-profile cases, either; often just regular folks like you or me. Having said that, I'm not going to go so far, necessarily, as to accuse the NRA of being little more than a front organization for the forces of gun control – although one might, based on the evidence, well make that assertion. What I am going to say, however, is only that which should be obvious by now: The NRA is no friend of freedom.
Used with permission from Strike The Root
Dear Editor,
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?
Remember- friends don’t let friends use anti-sportsmen fishing guides.
Sincerely,
Ilse
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 2nd 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.
|
