After watching initial House Judiciary Committee hearings on H.610, I was stunned that Vermont’s Office of Legislative Counsel (represented at the House Judiciary Committee by Attorney Erik Fitzpatrick) did not even address the issue of potential conflict with the Second Amendment.
As lawmakers consider legislation that would prevent people involved in serious domestic disputes from having a gun, one prominent law enforcement figure and a judge told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that enforcement of the bill would present substantial challenges and risks.
On Monday, January 13, I presented the following resolution to the Cavendish Select Board. I requested that this resolution be placed as an article on the condition that we discuss and vote on it at the annual town meeting in early March. The Select Board approved my request.
The “Firearms and Domestic Violence Bill” (H.610) is the first of a phalanx of intended assaults on the Bill of Rights. But its proponents forgot something — the pretense of constitutionality.
“We had no advanced notice of these bills,” Eddie Cutler, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, told True North. “The anti-gun crowd and anti-self-defense crowd were well prepared, and we weren’t even informed that these bills were having hearings.”
Last weekend’s shooting at a Texas church and stabbings at a New Jersey Hannukah celebration demonstrate that houses of worship must be able to defend themselves from murderous attackers, Vermont Traditions Coalition Firearms Policy Expert Bill Moore said in an interview following the attacks.
Concealed-carry permit holders are not “random people,” but individuals with the government’s affirmative approval to carry a concealed firearm in public places after having completed a series of steps required by the government.
A Vermont hunter and shooting-sports enthusiast has lost his right to own a gun without any judge, jury or due process after actions taken by the Legislature recategorized one of his prior offenses as a violent crime.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument Monday in the first major case involving gun rights in nearly a decade. A local shooting club is challenging New York City’s handgun regulations, perhaps the most restrictive and draconian in the nation.
We stand firm because we know it doesn’t stop with background checks and waiting periods; it doesn’t stop with scary, assaulty looking rifles; it doesn’t stop with regular rifles; it doesn’t stop with gun registration — it never stops.
Her seriously disturbed son went looking for the rifle, found it, murdered his mother with it, and then murdered 20 children and six adults at the school. The survivor plaintiffs now want Remington to pay them millions in damages. It’s now up to the Connecticut federal court to decide.