By Guy Page
The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs plans to sue the state of Vermont over the recently passed bill H.230, specifically the 72-hour waiting period, Sen. Terry Williams (R-Rutland) announced this morning.
Williams is also Southern Vice-President of the pro-Second Amendment advocacy organization.
H.230, which passed the House with a veto-proof majority and cleared the Senate just one shy of the necessary 20 votes, imposes (among other restrictions) a 72-hour waiting period before the buyer of a lawful firearms purchase may take possession of the gun. Supporters say it will reduce “impulse-buying” leading to murder and suicide.
Opponents say the recent Bruen decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in effect makes waiting periods unconstitutional. They seem to have agreement from Gov. Phil Scott, who allowed the bill to become law without his signature, and registered concerns about the waiting period’s constitutionality.
Scott also predicted a challenge in state courts:
“Given the relatively new legal landscape we find ourselves in following recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I have significant concerns about the provision’s constitutionality,” Scott said in a June 1 letter to the Legislature. “My struggle with the overall bill lies in the fact that I, and all legislators, took an oath to ‘not do any act or thing injurious to the constitution.’ However, this matter is currently being taken up through constitutional legal tests across the country and will be decided in Federal Court. I would also not be surprised to see a Vermont entity challenge the constitutionality of this provision of the bill, as well.”
Williams urged Vermonters interested in the court challenge to watch the VFSC website for more news.
Guy Page is publisher of the Vermont Daily Chronicle. Reprinted with permission.
Sad state of affairs when We, The People, have to spend our money in an attempt to have this ‘law’ declared unconstitutional, while the State will spend more of our money defending it.
A quote from Phil Scott: ” ‘… I, and all legislators, took an oath to ‘not do any act or thing injurious to the constitution.’ ”
That being the case, every one of them should be removed from office, from the top down, for their incessant violations of that oath, particularly where the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 9 of the VT State Constitution are concerned. Remember the “scamdemic” debacle? When will they be accountable? If this abuse is allowed to continue, it’s going to be a rough ride from here on.
VERMONT CONSTITUTION
Text of Section 56:
Oaths of Allegiance and Office
Every officer, whether judicial, executive, or military, in authority under this State, before entering upon the execution of office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation of allegiance to this State, (unless the officer shall produce evidence that the officer has before taken the same) and also the following oath or affirmation of office, except military officers, and such as shall be exempted by the Legislature.
The Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance
You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will be true and faithful to the State of Vermont and that you will not, directly or indirectly, do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or Government thereof. (If an affirmation) Under the pains and penalties of perjury.
The Oath or Affirmation of Office
You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will faithfully execute the office of ____ for the ____ of ____ and will therein do equal right and justice to all persons, to the best of your judgment and ability, according to law. (If an oath) So help you God. (If an affirmation) Under the pains and penalties of perjury.
LIsten, I’m conservative & support gun rights. But I don’t see the the big deal in waiting a mere 72 hours, when likely someone already owns guns.. IMO, if this case is heard in Burlington federal court, and we know what kind of judges there are in BTV, my guess the wait period is upheld. Because the 2nd amendment assures the “right to keep and bear arms”. Agreed. But the thorny legalese issue they will use to uphold, is that the constitution might no say to keep and bear arms….’On Demand”. A 72 hour wait period is not halting your constitutional right to buy and own…it just puts in a “check & balance” for 72 hours. After which if you have a clean record, you can buy as many guns as you wish.. I don’t see where the constitution mandates “on demand”. So I expect BTV federal court to uphold….and a long slow slog thru appellate courts, if they wish to continue the fight. It will all come down to legalese “minutiae”.
I DO AGREE that this new law was just using “suicide” as a ruse to get it into law…they knew that ruse was just the fake legalese pathway to make it harder and harder for ownership…it is how DEns ue LAWFARE all the time
Don’t hate on me for my opinon….Opinons are like Belly Buttons….everybody has one.
The big deal is that it is unconstitutional. So maybe we should have a two-week waiting period and then a month waiting period. Not on unconstitutional law should ever be allowed to stand.
Donald L. Cline: “A free citizenry does not ask its governments’ permission to exercise a right. It does not register its exercise of a right. It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, or the right to due process, or the right to be secure from being compelled to waive a right in order to exercise a right, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms which government does not have the authority to issue or deny in the first place. It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed. It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary. In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government receives its Consent to Govern. A free citizenry respects, honors, and protects the lawful rights of others, by force of arms, if necessary, else liberty cannot be preserved for anyone.
A federal government that does not derive every scintilla of its lawful and limited authority from the Constitution of the United States is by definition a rogue occupation government and criminal regime. Its authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey it.
A State government that exercises any power prohibited to it by the Constitution of the United States as amended is by definition a rogue occupation government and criminal regime. Its authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey its prohibited color of law”.
Jeffrey.
With all due respect (not hate!) regarding your opinion, I would offer this for your consideration:
The first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) define those areas in which the government has absolutely no authority to interfere under any circumstance. “Infringement” is the operative word in the case of the second amendment. Actions taken by government such as imposed a 72-hour waiting period for a firearm purchase falls into that category. What if a 72-hour waiting period were imposed on a newspaper publishing a piece expressing criticism of a government action or official (freedom of the press is protected by the first amendment)? What if we were required to register with the government before we could go to church (freedom of religion protected by the first amendment)? These would also be infringements of our rights. It’s a slippery slope into dictatorship when we allow our rights to be compromised. Food for thought.