Posted on Apr 13, 2018
Gov. Scott signs VT gun bills, calling for civility, as protesters yell 'traitor'
859
6
12
3
3
0
Vermont has stood for several years as a haven for gun owners alongside New Hampshire and Maine. Not anymore. Hopefully NH and ME don't follow suit. I agree with the idea that one should receive basic training, but at the same time: Vermont has been the safest state with all previous laws on the books. The governor had no need to try to fix something that wasn't broken.
Gov. Scott signs VT gun bills, calling for civility, as protesters yell 'traitor'
Posted from burlingtonfreepress.comPosted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
1. ERPOs aren't new. Several states have them; still requires a judge to sign off of them with sufficient probable cause. They are nothing but temporary restraining orders to protect one from hurting self or others. An ERPO would've been a tool a family member could have used for the Parkland HS shooter. LEOs can't arbitrarily take one's guns.
2. I've read five articles and none of them specify what the new limit on magazine capacity outlined in the bill. Does anyone know?
3. Ban bump stocks. Many on RP have said that's not a big deal.
4. Raised age of gun buyers to 21. Well I wish there had been a movement to lower the drinking age to 18 when I was 17.
5. Expanded background checks. Last time I checked, many pro-gun folks are for reforms to background checks.
Finally, it didn't ban any weapons. Wait. It didn't ban any weapons. Isn't that a good thing.
2. I've read five articles and none of them specify what the new limit on magazine capacity outlined in the bill. Does anyone know?
3. Ban bump stocks. Many on RP have said that's not a big deal.
4. Raised age of gun buyers to 21. Well I wish there had been a movement to lower the drinking age to 18 when I was 17.
5. Expanded background checks. Last time I checked, many pro-gun folks are for reforms to background checks.
Finally, it didn't ban any weapons. Wait. It didn't ban any weapons. Isn't that a good thing.
(1)
(0)
1SG Cj Grisham
1. So now we are going to dictate rights based on what someone MIGHT do? Have we become a Minority Report society?
2. Rifle magazines over 10 rounds and handgun magazines over 15 rounds. Makes no sense.
3. Who cares what people think? If you support gun rights, you shouldnt support ANY infringement on them. Where do gun owners draw the line? When you give an inch, they take a mile.
4. Drinking age should be 18, just like buying firearms.
5. That's a myth perpetuated by the anti-gun left.
2. Rifle magazines over 10 rounds and handgun magazines over 15 rounds. Makes no sense.
3. Who cares what people think? If you support gun rights, you shouldnt support ANY infringement on them. Where do gun owners draw the line? When you give an inch, they take a mile.
4. Drinking age should be 18, just like buying firearms.
5. That's a myth perpetuated by the anti-gun left.
(0)
(0)
SGT Aaron Atwood
My point of don't fix what isn't broken is towards Vermont itself while you looked at my comment at the national level. Prior to the governor signing that bill Vermont had some of the most lenient private gun ownership laws of the nation while being ranked several times by several sources as the safest state in the nation. The leniency clearly worked, and could still work in Vermont. Chicago on the other hand is an unspoken war zone with arguably the most restrictive gun laws around. They also caught and prevented a potential mass shooter who wanted to target a school in Vermont; thus preventing a mass shooting, and yet no one who could've done something did anything regarding the Parkland shooter.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
@Sgt Aaron Atwood, but I was looking at it from the perspective of VT and the fact that there were legislators whom felt gun laws needed additional improvements to continue it's trend as one of the safest states in the nation. Choosing not to be complacent and to stay ahead of issues by being proactive is not a bad thing. Again, did the law ban any firearms from being owned in the state? Nope. So what's the gripe?
As for Chicago which is always the go to location for you folks; a cities strict gun laws don't mean anything when you can just leave the city to buy whatever firearm you want and then return to Chicago. If there was any place that needs a "stop and frisk" firearms policy it's cities like Chicago.
As for Chicago which is always the go to location for you folks; a cities strict gun laws don't mean anything when you can just leave the city to buy whatever firearm you want and then return to Chicago. If there was any place that needs a "stop and frisk" firearms policy it's cities like Chicago.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
@1SG Cj Grisham,
1. "dictate rights based on what someone MIGHT do?" Why do you think laws exist in the first place....To dictate constraints, left and right limits, in order to place checks and balance on one's rights.
2. A 10 round magazine really bothers the gun enthusiast.
3. No weapons were banned in this VT law. So tell me again how your gun ownership is being infringed? That give an inch, take a mile goes both ways. Gun rights isn't a 'carte blanche' issue. It's a balancing act.
4. Drinking age wasn't always 21. There was a time the age was lowered when the voting age was lowered. Guess someone felt if one can vote, why can't they drink. So if someone can buy a gun and go to war, then why can't they buy a drink.
5. Simply a moronic statement period.
1. "dictate rights based on what someone MIGHT do?" Why do you think laws exist in the first place....To dictate constraints, left and right limits, in order to place checks and balance on one's rights.
2. A 10 round magazine really bothers the gun enthusiast.
3. No weapons were banned in this VT law. So tell me again how your gun ownership is being infringed? That give an inch, take a mile goes both ways. Gun rights isn't a 'carte blanche' issue. It's a balancing act.
4. Drinking age wasn't always 21. There was a time the age was lowered when the voting age was lowered. Guess someone felt if one can vote, why can't they drink. So if someone can buy a gun and go to war, then why can't they buy a drink.
5. Simply a moronic statement period.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
He's pandering though. The extremely vocal minority is getting what they want and us real Americans are saying BOHICA.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Liberals, no matter what they say, will do everything possible to abolish the 2nd amendment. Our gun rights are never safe as long as a Democrat is in office.
(0)
(0)
SGT Aaron Atwood
Except the VT governor is a Republican, and if you remember Connecticut's reaction to Sandy Hook in 2012 (or plan if you ask me) that legislation was passed by Democrats and Republicans including those who campaigned under a pro gun guise. The consistency is that the vast majority care about the survival and benefit of their political party over the voters, and that includes working with and making political deals with the other party.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google