36 thoughts on “Gun carry ban opponent to senator: ‘It must be nice to have guards’”

1. Quoting Baruth “I have had to walk the gauntlet from my committee room to my car past hundreds of people dressed in hunting clothes who recognized me and act aggressively towards me, in the State House,” Baruth said. “It is not a comfortable feeling for me.”

   Baruth, in VT, people in hunting clothes is normal. Welcome (not) to Vermont. Being concerned about what people wear as being “frightening” is a mental disorder, psychedelic condition using his position and sucking in cohorts to his fearful cause to try and pass legislation that affects the VT populace over nothing.

   If Baruth didn’t attempt to control law abiding people, this article would be mute and commenters wouldn’t be so concerned and life could go on without concern for being controlled. Baruth might desire to have a police escort whenever the sun or rain might hit his face. It’s overreach on his part and won’t have to legislate affecting the rest of us. Otherwise he has to option of moving back to the safe State of New York. And White can go back to Minnesota, Balint, return to Germany, Vermont is too dangerous.

   Baruth sense of reality is so skewed and is on a power trip.

   Absolute power corrupts absolutely! Sir John Dalberg-Acton.

   A hedonistic lifestyle, according to Orwell, weakens people. It makes them feeble and incapable of mounting any resistance to fanatical ideologues, who desire to rule over society.”

   This is so dangerous. We are governed by lunatics..and its not just one person. Author unknown

2. Joe,
   With all do respect as well, if you don’t support the bill just say you don’t support the bill and won’t be voting for it or any other gun legislation. Vermont has enough gun laws. Don’t monkey around with it in your committee. You know what the result will be.

3. Re: “But there’s more. Every hospital has a sign out front that is similar to every sign in front of public buildings. For the same reasons outlined above, there is already another way to avoid infringing on (by restricting available places to exercise) the constitutional right. It has been used. And it works.”

   But Senator: Are you really protecting the Constitution or inadvertently trashing it? How do you know ‘it works’?

   ‘Alternatively, if the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas.’

   We simply don’t know that any specific modification to our right to bear arms (e.g. restricted locations not specified in the 2nd Amendment) works any better than another, especially at any given point in time.

   Re: “TJ Donovan, who supports this bill, said people have a right to feel safe.”

   No, we don’t have that right! That we have the right to ‘feel’ anything is a complete obfuscation of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about whether we have the right to ‘feel’ one way or another.

   Beware the old Arabian proverb: “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.”

   • Jay, I completely agree with your statement about not having a right to “feel safe.” That’s exactly what I was implying. I thought I was rather specific in saying that is not the way to advance legislation like this.

4. Sen. Benning,

   The real issue is simple. When people enter a hospital, day care, school, work place etc. with a gun with the intent to do harm, those people don’t care what the Vermont gun laws are. Having a law or putting up a sign not to bring the gun into a building means nothing to a person with a mental disorder intent on killing.

   Ask you self this and ask your constituents, how many issues have you had in your area where a law abiding citizen has created an attack with a firearm in your local hospital, library, daycare etc. No number of gun laws short o a government gun round ups and confiscation will stop criminals from doing harm. Again, they don’t care what the laws are.

   What I have seen happen in the Senate Judiciary time after time is the language of a bill being tweaked so (for example) you and other Senators can go home and tell the constituents who oppose the bill, “Well it really doesn’t do anything and it doesn’t take away your right to own a gun.” You tell the others who support the bill, “Yes this is a good step to keeping you safe in public places”

   The fact remains as I said, Sen Baruth wants to be seen as an anti-gun warrior because he is from Chittenden County (San Francisco east) and his constituents love anti gun legislation. Its up to Senators like you to educate Mr. Baruth about honest law abiding gun owners in Vermont and show him that its criminals that always break the law. The last thing a law abiding citizen wants is to draw their weapon and pull the trigger. Every law abiding gun owner knows that action has major ramifications and is a life changer even if it was use to protect others from a criminal. Honest gun owners who carry for self defense just refuse to be a victim of crime if they can help it.

   Do you and other Senators want to be one of those teachers that punishes the entire class for the behavior of one child. Stop trying to solve problems that don’t exist with legislation that will have no real world results to solving an issue and get on with solving real issues that face Vermont i.e. COVID, the deficit in the state retirement system, our growing drug issues that drive illegal gun violence, our deteriorating State Colleges, the high taxes and cost of living in VT., the high cost of education and property taxes etc.

   This would help Vermont more than trying to punish law abiding gun owners.
   .

   • John, with respect, I’d suggest you read my remarks again. I’m doing exactly what you are arguing here that I should do. That IS my MO. Not sure why you are appearing to criticize me for not doing what I am doing.

     Let me be clear again. I’m not voting for this bill. Since we already have laws on the books that take care of whatever concern it raises, I don’t see any tweaks being made that will cause me to be supportive of creating a new criminal law that directly inhibits one’s right to bear arms.

   • Strangely enough, collective punishment is prohibited in public schools but it’s all the rage with elected and appointed officials.

   • John

     Have these people looked at the evidence of how well the gun laws work in Chicago?
     The weekend shooting report will be national news in the morning.
     This bill is sausage.
     They need to do better.
     Great job on your points.

5. Senator Baruth is not being very logical here.

   On the one hand, he feels threatened by the people he’s looking to disenfranchise. This implies that he feels that they would break the law and assault or murder him.

   Then he wants to create a new law that says that they can’t carry near him… which implies that he thinks that they’ll OBEY THE LAW. His new law, that is, and not the ones on the books forever against assault and murder.

   Which is it, Senator Baruth? Are all gun owners untrustworthy potential murderers, or are we lawabiding citizens who haven’t ever hurt you, even though we have reason to hate your policies? The fact that we fight you verbally, within the law, should be giving you the answer.

   The fact that you are “uncomfortable” seeing all the people protesting YOUR proposed laws should give you a huge hint that We the People do NOT want your constant efforts to disarm the populace.

6. “Later in the hearing, Sears himself expressed reservations with the current language in the bill. “I have concerns about the bill, but I want to be open minded that there are issues in hospitals. … I’m having trouble with [the broad language about] government buildings. I assumed we were talking about town halls, municipal buildings, the State House.” Right now there aren’t three yes votes on the five-person committee to move it to the Senate floor, he said”

   This is the same MO that Sen. Sears uses on every controversial bill and has done so for the past three decades, over and over again. He always acts like he doesn’t like the bill in the form it’s in, then a few worthless tweaks in the language and out it goes to be passed and sent to the Governor which he will likely sign. Unfortunately, Sen. Benning has been picking up on the same MO. This bill will come out of committee and be passed by the Senate. I’m sure a companion bill will pop up in the House.

   So, every legislative season Sen. Baruth continues to try to solve gun issues we don’t have in Vermont, just to make a name for himself as the big anti gun warrior..

   • Re: “Unfortunately, Sen. Benning has been picking up on the same MO.”

     Okay John, how do you figure? Perhaps you ought to be watching more of my comments during committee testimony. You are also welcome to call me for clarification before making such sweeping statements.

     So what is my MO here? The bill begins with the question I’ve heard too often: “Why do you have to have a gun in place X?” As I said to Senator White, this question turns the Constitution on its head. We are sworn to defend that Constitution. Shouldn’t the question actually be: “Why should we erode a constitutional right by restricting it’s exercise when we are in place X?”

     With the question thus redefined, let’s look at the bill. It targets three localities: public buildings, hospitals and child care centers. What evidence do we have that demonstrates the need to erode a constitutional right by restricting it in each of those places? An additional question must be asked when any bill possibly restricts a constitutional right: Is there another way to achieve the objective without creating a new criminal law?

     Public buildings: The unfortunate invasion of the nation’s capital has given fuel to the fire of those who are generally opposed to guns. That brings great emotion to the table. But what evidence is there in Vermont to justify this bill’s restriction? Some people, like Senator Baruth, feel intimidated by folks dressed in Orange. Okay, but in my mind that doesn’t provide evidence to justify the bill. Feeling “safe,” in my humble opinion, should never be used to erode a constitutional right. Someone feeling uncomfortable is not evidence. It’s also horrible precedent for embarking on a narrowing of a constitutional right.

     The second question, about other ways to address the problem, is even more pertinent to this targeted place. There is a sign outside every entrance to our statehouse and most public buildings. It says firearms are not permitted inside. DPS Commissioner Schirling and Capital Police Chief Matt Romei have both testified these signs give them the authority to remove someone from the building. They both said this works and thus, in their opinion, this bill is redundant and (assuming I heard them correctly) it is therefore unnecessary. For me, this says I should vote no on this bill because my oath to defend the constitution overrides any interest in this bill.

     Hospitals: My understanding for the listing of hospitals in this bill came from two basic factual allegations. First, we don’t want someone with a gun going into a hospital to rob it for drugs. Second, there was an incident at Dartmouth Hospital in which a man entered and killed his mother.

     With the testimony thus far hospital administrators have told us two things. First, there is no evidence of anybody going into a hospital with a gun to get drugs. Normally this, for me, would terminate any further consideration of this bill for hospitals. The Dartmouth incident involved a son going into the hospital with a gun with the express intent of putting her out of her (as he saw it) misery, as she had just been diagnosed with a brain aneurism. He had intentions to kill her, an act that that brings the highest penalty in our criminal jurisprudence. No blanket exclusion for firearms in hospitals would have stopped him and it is too overbroad to react to that sole incident by restricting everyone from exercising their constitutional right.

     But there’s more. Every hospital has a sign out front that is similar to every sign in front of public buildings. For the same reasons outlined above, there is already another way to avoid infringing on (by restricting available places to exercise) the constitutional right. It has been used. And it works.

     Child Care Centers: The only reason I’ve heard thus far for placing this entity in the bill’s targeted list is that some parent went into a child care center someplace and was uncomfortable that someone else had a gun on their person. TJ Donovan, who supports this bill, said people have a right to feel safe. (I’ve already indicated why, in my opinion, that’s no way to justify chipping away at constitutional rights.)

     We have yet to hear from any witnesses from child care centers. I will listen carefully, but I already know that child care centers and every other business enterprise has a right to put a sign out front that says “No Firearms.” In my mind, this puts a person on notice against trespass, a concept that was confirmed by Commissioner Schirling and Chief Romei. Violating that notice against trespass is already a criminal offense, even though it must be started by personal interaction, and we’ve heard that it works. I will nevertheless wait through the testimony to see if there are actual incidents of people using guns to threaten others inside these facilities, but I will still be asking the same questions above when considering whether to support or reject this bill.

     That’s my “MO” here. You have it in writing. Hope that makes my position clear enough, but if not anyone reading this is free to call me for further clarification.

     • With all due respect Senator: Obviously, in fact I’m certain, your MO is, as it should be, to represent your constituents.

       IF: “The bill begins with the question I’ve heard too often: Why do you have to have a gun in place X?”, why not answer the question instead of replacing it with another? The question has nothing directly to do with the Constitution (i.e. the rule of law).

       “Why do you have to have a gun in place X?” A classic false dilemma.

       First of all, I ‘don’t’ have to have a gun in place X.

       OK then, why would you ‘want’ to have a gun in place X?

       For the same reason I wear a seat belt in my car. I don’t put the seat belt on because I want to run into some one or something while I’m driving. I wear a seat belt because of the chance, unlikely as it may be, that I do run into something. Or, more to the point, I wear a seat belt in my car in case someone runs into me.

       Does that satisfy the question? I think it does.

       Then, if you want to discuss the rule of law, constitutional or otherwise, have at it.

       • I know my MO should be to represent my constituents Jay, but with over 100 emails a day from constituents with opinions ranging from “Just pass it” to “Don’t NY my gun rights,” you might imagine determining what my constituents want on any give subject can sometimes be problematic. For that reason I start any calculation by protecting the Constitution first.

         • Perhaps I should have said then, your MO is to represent your constituents ‘to the best of your ability’. After all, it goes without saying (at least I thought it did), that no one can please all of the people all of the time.

           But we digress. Please consider the rest of my post.

           IF, “The bill begins with the question I’ve heard too often: Why do you have to have a gun in place X?”, why not answer the question instead of replacing it with another?

         • Thank you for protecting the Constitution of the United States.

         • You weren’t t sworn into office to defend your constituents. You were sworn into office to uphold and defend the constitution, we are a republic, not a democracy. Clearly many in office are ignorant of this most basic duty.

         • Neil: What’s your point? Word use is critical here.

           Lest there be any confusion, I didn’t see that anyone said Senator Benning was ‘defending’ his constituents… as opposed to ‘representing’ them.

           Yes, he’s ‘defending’ the Constitution (as he sees it).

           But there’s no difference between being sworn into office to represent your constituents, and being sworn into office to uphold and defend the Constitution?

           My questions, for example, have been with regard to Senator Benning’s ‘selective’ defense of the 2nd Amendment – that the right to bear arms is somehow to be determined by an elected official’s, or a judge’s, decision that the right is contingent upon a time and place of their choosing. There is no such language to that effect in the 2nd Amendment.

       • I’m at a loss here for the reasoning that the Vermont legislature believes it can legislate away a constitutional right. I’m not being flip or a smartass. We have constitutional rights, both state and federal. Where does the legislature find it’s authority in either constitution to violate those rights? They are the supreme law of the state and the federal system of laws whish are natural rights. Lawmakers take an oath to defend and not harm the Vermont constitution under the pains and penalties of perjury then go about the business of violating both. Even during a pandemic, constitutional rights can not be suspended. Emergency health issues may cause a 30 day suspension for safety but that’s it. So the individual law makers who propose unconstitutional laws should be prosecuted or at the very least censored and removed from office. Otherwise the oath of office has no meaning and it’s existence is known to be worthless by those who swear to it. The senator feels he can subvert the constitutional rights of Vermonters because he is afraid of men in Orange also assembled under their constitutional right to address their grievances to the government. I believe it was this senator who caused them to be there in the fist place by proposing his first round of constitutional violations of Article 16 and the 2nd Amendment.

     • Sen Benning, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this and your position on anti gun bills in the past. However, I think that you answered the question when you stated above; “As I said to Senator White, this question turns the Constitution on its head. We are sworn to defend that Constitution”. End of discussion.

       As stated, the Constitution does not protect a right to “feel” a certain way. It does however provide a means to defend oneself and that is the closest one can get to “feeling” safe. It seems like a lot of legislative time is devoted to helping people “feel” a certain way when that time should be devoted to making sure that all Constitutional rights are not infringed.

   • Solving issues that don’t exist:

     Using false dichotomies is a common political tactic, most used in the budgetary process to deceive a misinformed public.

     The committee ‘proposes’ to raise a budget 10% from the previous year and submits it for consideration. But then, after further negotiations, the committee submits a ‘proposed budget’ that’s only 9.5% higher than the year before…but, this time, the committee announces that, after ‘difficult’ negotiations, the ‘proposed budget’ to be submitted to voters has been decreased by 5%, from X amount of dollars to Y dollars.

     Never mind that the proposed budget is still 9.5% higher than the year before.

     Every school budget I’ve seen over the last 40 years has been presented to the public this way. You’d think, at some point, ‘the public’ would catch on.

     • People also need a much faster determination of unconstitutional laws. We are still waiting for the Vermont Supreme Court to determine the first round of firearms restrictions passed into law almost 3 years ago.

7. “and act aggressively towards me, in the State House,” Baruth said. “It is not a comfortable feeling for me.”

   Oh poor baby,, if it’s too hot in the frying pan maybe it’s time to jump
   out…and don’t stop at politics in VT, do us all a favor and LEAVE VT.

   Crying like AOC must be the new playbook in the Xiden^ residency..
   It allows you to command troops and fence off your perimeter
   to keep out those your whose rights you trample on… I’m with the
   hunters in orange on this all the way to the end…

   BRING THE TROOPS HOME from The swamp…

8. “To which Bradley replied, “Senator, you hit on a key point. It must be nice to have guards.”

   “Yeah, it’s wonderful,” Sears said.

   “Yeah, well, the rest of us don’t,” Bradley replied. At that point Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, scoffed and Sears cut off the line of discussion.”

   For me,not for thee.

   That is what is wrong with these proposed infringements, one set of rules for the lawmakers and another set for the peasants,when laws are supposed to apply equally to all people.
   That mindset is what is wrong in Montpelier and these so called representatives of the people and they forget that or ignore it,that they serve at the pleasure of the people.

9. The Progressives will continue to use Legislative Incrementalism to slowly strip away your constitutionally-protected civil rights in order to implement their totalitarian police state.

10. If the senator is afraid for his life in the second safest state in the union perhaps he should move to Maine the number one safest state. Or, he could just stop using his legislative power to violate his oath of office under the pains and penalties of perjury and stop violating our constitution. Then again he could just leave the senate and live happily ever after.

    • I would add that the sea of orange worn by 2nd amendment and article 16 supporters were there because of the senator’s earlier push for gun control. He is the one responsible for his own unfounded fear. These people, like the senator believe that passing laws makes them safer when in his own county felons who are federally banned from owning firearms all carry illegal guns. So, he goes after law abiding guns owners. Why is he a senator, he obviously doesn’t comprehend that criminals could care less about his laws and all he does is make criminals out of good people who only desire to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm and those criminals who the law does not properly deal with.

    • Dano you said a mouth full.. If the senator can’t take the heat GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN ( legislation)… I have not seen anyone attack him or any of them. When they said they get threatening phone calls to show us the proof.. (which they can’t).. Montpelier needs to be CLEANED OUT… the swamp is getting too dirty….

      • It appears to me that Baruth is taking cues from Pelosi and her demented minions – declaring that those who oppose them are dangerous radicals.

        I’d much rather live in a country where the people treasure and fight for their rights – and where the petty politicians trying to strip those rights away have a healthy fear of the populace.

        Baruth and his kind don’t realize, yet, that their continued self-aggrandizing and Constitution-shredding actions now will only create an ever increasing population of those they claim to fear.

11. S.30, is just another attempt from Sen. Philip Baruth , same BS just a different year,
    every time the liberals think they have a chance ” power ” they present the same old
    song and dance, hypotheticals from within a liberal mind that make a problem when
    there isn’t one.

    These type of bills fail because it’s a useless bill, feel good policy that would not curtail
    anything, especially all the hypotheticals.

    One would think that a Senator, would probably find and fix all the real issue within the
    state…… Nah !! pretty pathetic, that this is what we have in Montpelier.

    .

12. If our transplanted Senator Baruth fears the people then maybe he should stop working against the people of the state he has adopted. “When the people fear the government……..that is tyranny. When the government fears the people……….that is liberty”. Professor Baruth would be wise to recognize that reality. If Baruth can find a criminal who respects and abides by the law and will recognize and abide by all of his gun laws then maybe I will consider his arguments as valid., not before.

13. Point of clarification

    This article appears to state that I suggested that all lawmakers should be armed and that everyone in the statehouse should be armed.

    That is not correct and is inflammatory.

    At 24:37 I said “It is my understanding that there are legislators that are armed today..And that they go about their business at the statehouse today, armed.” I made no comment whatsoever concerning anybody else being armed at the Statehouse – that was it.

    All legislators have the right to be armed, but there is a Statehouse Rule that this is enforceable under 13 VSA 3705 that prevents this – on paper. Theoretically, only law enforcement should be armed at the Statehouse.

    Robert Heinlein wrote: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

    That may sound a bit harsh, and for non-firearms people that may even be upsetting – but why else is Vermont consistently one of the top two safest states in the nation according to FBI statistics on Violent Crime? Please: What other reason could there be?

    It is fact that law-abiding citizens who are not otherwise prohibited from possession of firearms may choose to arm themselves if they choose to be, and over 56,000 Vermont citizens, all of whom had to pass a background check prior to taking possession, felt the need in these troubling time to buy a record number of firearms for self-defense.

    The fact that I continuously have to defend that right from ever increasing encroachment – dare I say “infringement” – is my cross to bear, and I bear it willingly.

    • Re: “This article appears to state that I suggested that all lawmakers should be armed and that everyone in the statehouse should be armed.”

      Mr. Bradley, this article doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. It appears to quote you quite accurately, that ”lawmakers — should be allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.”

      Most of us know the difference between ‘should’ and ‘shall’. And one would think a 2nd amendment advocate like yourself would know better than to ‘shoot yourself in the foot’.

      Don’t worry. We get it.

14. Gun free zones are free killing zones for the insane.

15. I saw a movie once where only the police and military were allowed to have guns. It was called Schindler’s List.

    “WHEN THE DEBATE IS LOST, SLANDER BECOMES THE TOOL OF THE LOSER”. – SOCRATES

    I WILL NOT OBEY !
    I WILL NOT COMPLY !

16. When the ‘Left’s’ argument falls short of logic, the only arrow in their quiver is to scoff and terminate the discussion.

    Not only are they lucky to have bodyguards, they’re luck to still have the majority that allows them to be so dismissive. Hopefully, that will change soon.

    • Well said.

Comments are closed.