Vermont May Give “Comprehensive Gun Control” A Whirl

So, if these “common sense restrictions” that are portrayed as not-infringements do not work, can we move on and put in place stronger penalties on people who use firearms in a criminal manner? Or are Democrats just bound and determined to dink and dunk their way to banning guns from the hands of law abiding citizens?

(The Hill) New gun restriction is headed for Vermont’s governor after the state Senate approved the bill on Friday.

Vermont’s Democratic majority state Senate passed the measure in a 17-13 vote on Friday, Reuters reported. The legislation passed the state House on Tuesday.

The bill will now head to Gov. Phil Scott (R), a lifelong gun owner who also holds a 93 percent approval rating from the National Rifle Association, but is expected to sign the bill.

Scott said his stances on gun control “changed completely” after the February mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school where 17 people died. Vermont also averted a school shooting in February after a tip to law enforcement, according to the Burlington Free Press.

Huh. So Vermont law enforcement succeeded where the school, Sheriff’s office, and FBI failed in Parkland, but, we still need restrictions on law abiding citizens?

The legislation would raise the minimum legal age required to buy firearms in Vermont to 21, expand background checks for private gun sales, ban bump stocks and magazines of more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for pistols.

Scott said after the Senate vote that he supports the legislation, and that it would protect citizens from gun violence without infringing on their constitutional rights.

Banning bump stocks? No problem. What they mean by expanded background checks is all private sales require a background check. No problem with that. Raising the age to 21? Silly. Banning legal adults from purchase by law is a violation of Rights, at the federal level and the State level

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

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.

This Constitution for the state was passed before the federal Bill of Rights. But, hey, the same people passing this legislation (all Democrats) also want to give children the Right to vote. Anyhow, do they actually think reducing magazine size will make a difference? People will just purchase elsewhere or make their own for rifles. The vast majority of handguns take 15 rounds or less. So, really, this amounts to not doing much about anything. What you can bet will now happen is that the Democrat controlled General Assembly will pass more restrictions. Dink and Dunk, especially when the GOP gov was willing to sign this.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

18 Responses to “Vermont May Give “Comprehensive Gun Control” A Whirl”

  1. Hoss says:

    Let’s just change the age for everything -voting, drinking, buying a gun to 26, because that’s the number democrats picked for when you actually become an adult.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    If they’re not responsible enough to own a gun until the age of 21 then they’re not responsible enough to vote until that age.

  3. Jeffery says:

    if these “common sense restrictions” that are portrayed as not-infringements

    And you support most of the “common sense restrictions”…

    Do you consider background checks on all sales, including “private” sales to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment? How about limiting magazine capacity?

    Our Supreme Court has refused to hear cases on assault weapon bans, letting the bans stand.

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      The media and government has been increasingly hostile to the 2a for the better part of a hundred years. Do you trust that the average fellow doesn’t give a whit for his God given rights and will just roll over? Perhaps the average fellow says nothing because he is held in derision? The only way to find out is to make your play – how much is it worth to you to figure it out? Make no mistake your side is making a hard play for a Balkans type conflict with hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions in butcher’s bill.

      • Jeffery says:

        You poor, poor victims.

        We have access to firepower just short of what our infantry has. You can buy as many guns as you can afford. You can carry guns openly in most places. If you’re frightened you can shoot and kill and get away with it.

        Now you threaten armed revolution, murder and mayhem if your imagined “rights” are limited in any way.

        Bump stocks, magazine capacity, background checks = revolution?

        • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

          Your side is calling for an end to the 2a. “Commonsense gun laws” is and always has been a ruse.

          • Jeffery says:

            A “side” can’t repeal the 2nd Amendment.


            The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

            (An amendment has never been proposed via a constitutional convention).

            38 of 50 state legislature must then approve the proposed Amendment.

            The likelihood that the 2nd Amendment will be repealed is infinitesimal. You would start shooting people if AR-15 style rifles were banned? Or if magazine capacity was limited? Or if background checks were tightened?

            What is the trigger that will cause your shooting spree? What will force “your side” to start shooting police officers?

        • Dana says:

          I’m trying to figure it out he5re: just what “common sense restrictions” would you approve of the government imposing your First Amendment rights?

          1 – Incarcerating people for saying things which hurt other people’s feelings? It just happened in our Mother Country, you know!
          2 – Banning untrustworthy people from entering the theater, because they might yell, “Fire!”?
          3 – Shutting down The New York Times because they might print something critical of the President of the United States?
          4 – Prohibiting Facebook from accepting posts from foreign sources, because they might have originally come from Russian intelligence saying mean, but nevertheless truthful, things about Hillary Clinton?
          5 – Neo-Nazis loudly but still peaceably assembling on the Washington mall, shouting that the government needs to round up and deport all of the illegal immigrants?

          I could make a common sense argument in favor of all of those things, and I deliberately chose things which would appeal to both the right and the wrong left. Why should people’s constitutional rights be subject to whether the people currently in power happen to disapprove of their reasons to exercise them?

          • Jeffery says:


            Of course, your error is in your interpretation of our 2nd Amendment. Our Supreme Court has already set some limits directly and refused to hear cases on assault weapon bans, leaving the lower court rulings to stand.

            You are arguing that ANY restriction on firearms violates our 2nd Amendment, and that is an extreme interpretation.

            Will you abide by Supreme Court rulings?

  4. Jeffery says:

    Do you trust that the average fellow doesn’t give a whit for his God given rights and will just roll over?

    “God” has given you the right to an AR-15?

    Does “your side” not “give a whit” regarding Supreme Court rulings and US law?

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      Come on and get ’em buddy, see what happens.

      • Jeffery says:

        Moron labe.

        • david7134 says:

          The concern on AR15 is not why we might want one, we don’t have to justify that. But it is imperative that you tell us why you want to restrict them. The school shootings are proof positive that liberal policies of handling crazy people has failed.

          • Jeffery says:

            Are all limits on personal firearms unconstitutional? If so, why do you tolerate them?

          • david7134 says:

            That is not the question at this point, it is reducing the risk for children and that has nothing to do with the cosmetics of certain guns. You likely do not realize that an M1 carbine would be a better gun for a bad guy. It is cheap, easy to use, a proven battle weapon and excellent for close quarters. But it is not an assault weapon. The issue though is the failure, once again, of liberal agenda with mental illness.

          • Jeffery says:

            The gun nuts keep saying that the AR-15 is only cosmetically different from traditional rifles, and that is demonstrably untrue. The AR-15 is designed for killing humans. From it’s handling, pistol stock, caliber etc… That’s why the AR-15 is the overwhelming choice for mass shooters. Not the M1. Why did the military switch to assault weapons?

            The point is to reduce the risk to all. This is one way to reduce the carnage, but not the only way.

          • gitarcarver says:

            The gun nuts keep saying that the AR-15 is only cosmetically different from traditional rifles, and that is demonstrably untrue.

            So your position is that the AR15 is different from other semi-automatic rifles? (And there are many.)

            The AR-15 is designed for killing humans.

            False. The AR-15 (military version) had no specification on “killing people.”

            From it’s handling, pistol stock, caliber etc…

            So the weapon is a better weapon? That’s your point? People shouldn’t be able to defend themselves with an efficient and accurate weapon?

            Should people be forced to drive older cars because newer cars accelerate better?

            Why did the military switch to assault weapons?

            The military also changed from the F-16 to the F-22 and the F-35. What does the military choice have to do with this discussion?

            HINT: Nothing.

            The point is to reduce the risk to all.

            So stripping people of the right to defend themselves will decrease risks? Do criminals know this?

            This is one way to reduce the carnage, but not the only way.

            Yet the left hates freedom and Americans so much that their only solutions have total and complete confiscation of weapons from people.

            Tulsa police are investigating a shooting Monday at the Ashwood Apartments near 31st and 129th East Avenue. We’re told a man in his 40’s was trying to break into and burglarize his ex wife’s apartment where she lives with her kids. She shot him in the side. Police say he had been harassing her and broke out her windows recently.

            The left hates this woman because she was able to defend herself with a gun.

            Hate is all the left has.

            The other day you posted that your “beloved daughter in law” has a shotgun. That shotgun carries more than one or two shells in it doesn’t it?

            We won’t get into the hypocrisy you extolling the virtues of the shotgun that carries more than 2 shells when only 2 are really necessary, but should the government have the right and ability to say that weapons can only carry one round or 2 shells?

            If yes, then would you demand your DIL turn over the weapon to the feds or state?

            If not, why should there be a capacity restriction on some weapons, and not others?

  5. […] that go after the law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals. Now Oregon is giving what Vermont just did a […]

Pirate's Cove