Plan in Vermont is to 'inch forward' on guns in spite of state law

examiner.com ^ | 14 October, 2013 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

The effort to enact state preemption law-violating “gun control” measures in Burlington is being advanced in steps as recommended by Rep. Linda Waite-Simpson of Essex and anti-gun activists, the Vermont Federation of Sportmen’s Clubs reported yesterday, citing the latest “Vermont this Week” Public Television panel. The revealed game plan is to settle for incremental gains and then go back later to try for further measures,

“[T]he Burlington City Council's charter committee changed its proposed gun control ordinance … in hopes of having it pass at the Burlington Council City Public Hearing,” VFSC told its supporters in an advisory alert.

Moderator Stewart Ledbetter made no attempt to solicit balance on the TV panel, and adopted the rhetoric used by anti-gunners without question, referring to proposed restrictions as “gun safety regulation[s]” and semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons” with “high capacity magazine clips.”

But the key admission came from Terri Hallenbeck of the Burlington Free Press.

“So, this is a way to inch things forward on the gun control issue,” she observed. “You go to one of Vermont's most liberal municipalities and you get a tiny bit, then maybe you inch forward."

What the Burlington Council is inching toward is indicated by the June 17 minutes of the Charter Change Committee, showing a wish list of controls encompassing semi-auto bans, concealed carry bans, mandatory registration, and an “ordinance for police to seize weapons,” among other edicts they wish to enact.

“This is just what Vermont gun rights advocates have said all along in defending your Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights,” VFSC noted, referring to Hallenbeck’s statement.

[marktwain]

The plan has always been to push more and more restrictions on gun owners, to reduce their numbers until they become politically irrelevant. That is how it was done in the United Kingdom, thought they had smaller numbers to start with.

[Vaquero]

incrementalism.....serving the left for 150 years.

[catbertz]

Yep. The GOP seems unable to counter such steady determination. Most of us recognize Obamacare is another example of incrementalism, leading to single payer, and yet we’re seemingly unable to stop it.

[PoloSec]

“So, this is a way to inch things forward on the gun control issue,”

Well...it would take the same dedication by gun rights advocates, if it can be inched forward, it can be inced back, and if they are really enthusiastic for every inch forward, fight and move it a foot back, that will soon put a stop the nonsense, gun rights advocates are only irrelevant if they choose to be so.

[i_robot73]

You propose that the GOP actually are AGAINST OCare and the like. Your premise is wrong; that’s why you’re so confused /s

Where/when is the Constitution EVER used as a basis from either side of the aisle. It’s mostly ‘case law’ (antithesis to the Const. in 99% of the cases, and almost ALWAYS pro-govt)

I’d love to see a suit: 2nd ‘shall not be infringed’, thus all gun laws are UNCONST. Let the judges ‘legal’ their way out of THAT. Then use the same to impeach/remote/un-elect/etc.