Skip to comments.Burlington Council Takes Up Gun Ban Resolution
Posted on 01/07/2013 4:46:44 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
The right to bear arms is the law of the land. But after an unprecedented series of shooting rampages last year, some state and local governments are now considering bans on assault weapons on their streets. Burlington's City Council will vote Monday night on a charter change that would prohibit certain weapons in Vermont's largest city.
Vermont state statute blocks such bans, but that isn't stopping some Burlington City Council members. They'll consider a strongly-worded resolution that essentially asks for an exception to the state law. They've proposed a charter change that would ban semi-automatic assault weapons and multiple ammunition clips in the city
"In the absence of legislation from Washington and perhaps the absence of legislation from Montpelier, we're left with a situation where we have to act locally," says City Councilor Norm Blais, who drafted the resolution.
In December, 20 children and six of their teachers were killed in the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Blais says that tragedy hit too close to home not to do something.
"Geographically it was the first time that there was an event of that magnitude close to Vermont," Blais says. "But secondly, having that event happen with first graders has a real impact on people."
Blais and other city leaders say the tragedy in Newtown should give them power to regulate high-powered weapons.
"A person could be walking up to one of our elementary schools with an AK-47 fully loaded strapped to his or her back and the police would be powerless," he argues. "I think when people realize that that's the state of the law, their reaction is, Well, let's cure that and let's come up with a remedy.'"
It seems Burlington might have a hard time persuading the governor, though.
"We're not an island," says Governor Peter Shumlin, who has long said Vermont should take charge on certain issues - from same-sex marriage to single-payer health care. "We should lead when the federal government won't."
But speaking to reporters last week in Montpelier, Shumlin argued any remedy for gun violence - even in the wake of Sandy Hook - needs to come from Congress.
"I believe that the solutions to our challenges are for all 50 states to have the same rules applied to them," he said.
Asked repeatedly whether he thinks some restrictions should be made on gun sales in Vermont, Shumlin dodged a barrage of questions, saying it's the federal lawmakers' job to fix.
"Let's see what they come up with," he said tersely.
If Burlington City Council approves the resolution, voters could weigh in on the issue when they go to the polls in March or in 2014. Any charter change would also require the approval of the Legislature.
Sue them into bankruptcy... they don’t need streets, sewer treatment or drinking water. They damn sure do not need police protection... being all safe and such!
So some podunk retards are busy letting the voters know that they are bored and have now resorted to publicly stunts?
Why not pass some “resolutions” asking to be let out of the whole Constitution too?
First, these "events" are not natural disasters to be dealt with; and they don't really have "magnitude" in the sense that word was used here. The suggestion is that, like a hurricane, this shooting was a higher danger than some other, but all these events have a similar chance of destruction.
There was nothing particularly unique about the weapons in the latest shooting, compared to the other shootings this year. This guy just happened to find a more compliant set of victims, and a better circumstance under which to act, so he was able to kill more people than the mall shooter, or the theater shooter.
The big difference in those three shootings? In the mall and the theater, people were allowed to do what they do when they hear shots -- they ran away.
IN the school, the kids were not allowed to run away. Instead, the were herded into their classrooms, and held for the shooter to access. From preliminary reports, the only reason more kids weren't dead is that at least one teacher violated the lockdown rule and sent her kids to hide somewhere else.
I would note that the number of deaths in the twin towers on 9/11/2001 also seems to have been increased because of the official policy of telling people to stay put while the government handled the situation. Many people who ran escaped, many who followed the direction of the authorities stayed and waited for rescue that never came.
“...asks for an exception to the state law”
...I’ve been to Burlington many times. It’s made up of the biggest group of hairy legged, Birkenstock wearing, stinky assed, left wing lunatics you’ve ever seen. They won’t “ask” for anything. Brown shirts will tattle on gun owners who will then get their car tires slashed, windows egged and/or broken etc. It’s how “Utopia” works.
Do they really have a law in that state where strangers are allowed onto school property with rifles strapped to their backs?
Of course, in many states the "gun-free-school" policy would prevent that. Until recently, I thought that policy was a federal dictate, but apparently some states have resisted.
I would be OK with a rule that only people with a purpose to be in a school be allowed on the property.
In the fall of 1962, Woolworth’s in Burlington sold Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, over the counter, for under $20.*
My, how things have changed.
*...I can’t rewmember if they were $19.95 or $9.95
I’d bet my next paycheck that these city council members have an armed cop at council meetings.
It’s time to strip all politicians of taxpayer-funded protection. Let’s vote on that.
If they ban them, does that mean the police can’t have them?
What will they do if a person walks up to a school with a banned AK-47?
“Hey! You can’t have that!”
I got my first 30-30 from the JC Penney just up the street from Woolworth’s in the early 70’s - still have the original receipt and it was $49.99.
No matter how many laws they pass to keep guns or strangers out of schools, the only thing that will keep schools safe (well, at least from outsiders) is to have people in the school who are armed. I don’t think an armed guard is the answer, because a shooter would take him out first.
If a shooter has no idea how many people are armed or who they are at a school, then he will think twice before he picks that target. That is why school employees should be allowed to have guns and they must know who the other people are in the school who are armed.
Well, it will be interesting to see what happens if they do claim they have turned Burlington into a gun-free zone. Talk about an open invitation to crime! Somebody could make a lot of money running daily “tour” buses from the closest inner city hell-hole out to pure and tranquil Burlington.
I support guns in schools.
But i don’t think that will make schools “safer”. Frankly, I think schools are safe enough. They are safer than most any other place; fewer kids die at school than at home, or outside of school at play. Even on an hour-by-hour basis, schools are safer.
They just happen to be high-”value” targets, so when kids are killed at a school, we all know about it. That draws people to commit crimes there. Realize most kids who are killed are by accident, or during the commission of another crime; there is no “other crime” that brings an armed gunman to school, so the school shooters are looking to kill kids, and that is what makes it more newsworthy.
But by the same token, while you might reasonably say that the threat of an armed response would deter a sane person, we are talking about extremely rare occurrences here, with only a few perpetrators with known mental issues. Who is to say that such a person would be deterred simply by the possibility that a teacher might have a gun?
I want guns in schools on the off chance that it might deter someone, and also that it might provide a faster response, meaning fewer kids might be killed by the crazed gunman.
I think the Supreme Court ruled against the Constitutionality of the act due to the fact that the required connection to inter-state commerce did not exist.
I believe that Congress then quickly passed another version and simply added language suggesting that it applies because guns might have passed through inter-state commerce.
I don't know if this would pass Supreme Court tests. Simply saying something is inter-state commerce doesn't make it so, and if the government could have provided that rationale, then the original case would not have been lost.
Some states, including Kalifornia, have passed their own versions.
I believe that the federal version does not apply to those with valid concealed carry permits. I think Kalifornia's law also does not apply in such a case.
Those thinking of entering a school gun-free zone should check with their lawyer first or face possible felony conviction. Don't rely on my perhaps faulty memory.
Well knowing there might be an armed citizen in schools might not deter a nut case, but it seems that most of them want to go out with a big headline. If they thought they would be dropped before they could take out a bunch of people, they might not want to do it.
Of course there is no way to ensure absolute security for anyone. We live in fallen world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.