Vermont to impose UBCs, mag limits, 21 age requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
65,917
Location
0 hrs east of TN
It is unlikely that the governor will not sign the bill, much less veto it.

AAvixnL.jpg ©

Vermont lawmakers gave final legislative approval on Friday to a bill that raises the legal age for buying firearms and expands background checks, becoming the latest state poised to tighten gun restrictions after last month's Florida school massacre.

The measure now goes to Republican Governor Phil Scott, who has shifted his stance and voiced support for some gun controls after the arrest in February of a Vermont teenager accused of threatening to shoot up a high school. The incident came two days after a former student killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14.

Scott's support for gun controls marked a sharp switch for a governor with a 93 percent approval rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) gun rights advocacy group in an otherwise politically liberal state with a reputation as a pro-gun stronghold.

Vermont, a largely rural New England state with a passion for hunting, is one of two dozen states where efforts to curb gun violence have gained momentum since the Feb. 14 shooting rampage that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

The Vermont bill raises the age for gun purchases to 21 and expands background checks for private gun sales. It also bans magazines of more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for pistols as well as rapid-fire devices known as bump stocks.
 
It also bans magazines of more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for pistols
That mag ban grandfathers magazines possessed on the date of enactment. The Vermont legislators backtracked on a blanket mag ban, as well as an AWB. Because of the grandfather provision, the mag ban is completely toothless going forward. Anything could be a "preban" mag.
 
That mag ban grandfathers magazines possessed on the date of enactment. The Vermont legislators backtracked on a blanket mag ban, as well as an AWB. Because of the grandfather provision, the mag ban is completely toothless going forward. Anything could be a "preban" mag.

Just like California did, until they just passed a law that changed that.
 
I hope the Vermont Supreme Court strikes down this law like they did to a City ordinance way back in 1903.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
Exactly, California promised everyone all magazines would be grandfathered in.
Once enough time goes by that the number of people that still applies to has dwindled and they are easier to marginalize they can just go back on the promise. Many in California even purchased firearms specifically to make use of grandfathered magazines, rather than purchase other firearms they may have otherwise preferred, or got the odd or strange versions of firearms that used such grandfathered magazines.
Now California has said oops, we change our minds and in fact those magazines we grandfathered in are now prohibited.

Grandfathering does not work, because the population grows and changes. Grandfathering locks in a shrinking percentage of people that care about what was grandfathered, and they can easily be taken on in a decade or two with little or no support because the only people impacted by a ban to something already banned are the then shrunken minority that were grandfathered in.
Grandfathered in owners move, die, and as the population grows and new people move in or immigrate in the percent they represent of both the population or of gun owners concerned about that issue diminishes until they are divided and conquered.
 
Last edited:
My recruiter couldn't wait to sign me up at 19 y.o. And Uncle Sam couldn't wait to hand me an automatic weapon. Then he sent me to the other side of the world for a year. All before I was 21. I just don't understand this 21 requirement. It makes no sense at all.

Aside from the obvious anti-gun stuff. At the heart of it is a lot of people below the age of 21 are doing a lot of bad things and older people remembering what they were like at that age. No one batted an eye when they increased the drinking age and put in new rules for them about driving. The numbers are just there to support that as a large group they are not responsible.
 
Aside from the obvious anti-gun stuff. At the heart of it is a lot of people below the age of 21 are doing a lot of bad things and older people remembering what they were like at that age. No one batted an eye when they increased the drinking age and put in new rules for them about driving. The numbers are just there to support that as a large group they are not responsible.
That's fine. Then increase the age of military enlistment to 21. Also increase the age to vote, drive and get married to 21. Those items effect way more lives than mass shootings do. Oh and while we're at it lets increase the min age for bringing babies into the world to 21. Now that would make a huge societal improvement. Here's a good one for the pro choice crowd, lets ban abortion till 21 when they are responsible enough to make such a serious decision. Could go on all night but I'm afraid it would only echo to the choir and the ones that need to hear it never will.......
 
My recruiter couldn't wait to sign me up at 19 y.o. And Uncle Sam couldn't wait to hand me an automatic weapon. Then he sent me to the other side of the world for a year. All before I was 21. I just don't understand this 21 requirement. It makes no sense at all.
I think this is a direct response to legally purchased weapons being used to shoot up schools by students. Their view is...if the students can buy the gun, they won't have one of shoot up their school with. However, I believe someone who is so motivated to commit such an atrocity won't worry about such laws and will either buy one illegally or steal one. So, I agree...it doesn't make a ton of sense.
 
at's fine. Then increase the age of military enlistment to 21. Also increase the age to vote, drive and get married to 21. Those items effect way more lives than mass shootings do. Oh and while we're at it lets increase the min age for bringing babies into the world to 21. Now that would make a huge societal improvement. Here's a good one for the pro choice crowd, lets ban abortion till 21 when they are responsible enough to make such a serious decision. Could go on all night but I'm afraid it would only echo to the choir and the ones that need to hear it never will.....

I agree with you But this has nothing to do with saving lives these anti american brainwashed souls really dont care about truly saving lives or talking about real issues with real change they are just using this last shooting as a tool to push their agenda,
 
I think this is a direct response to legally purchased weapons being used to shoot up schools by students. Their view is...if the students can buy the gun, they won't have one of shoot up their school with. However, I believe someone who is so motivated to commit such an atrocity won't worry about such laws and will either buy one illegally or steal one. So, I agree...it doesn't make a ton of sense.
What they're intentionally ignoring is that if the sheriff's department had done their job and enforced the law the kid would have been in the NICS and wouldn't have been legally able to buy the gun.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...as-cruz-parkland-shooting-20180318-story.html
 
What they're intentionally ignoring is that if the sheriff's department had done their job and enforced the law the kid would have been in the NICS and wouldn't have been legally able to buy the gun.http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...as-cruz-parkland-shooting-20180318-story.html
Oh...I'm not saying what they are doing makes sense. I'm just saying why I believe they are doing it.

As far as I'm concerned...there are plenty of laws on the books already that should be preventing many of these incidents. They just aren't being enforced. I'm unsure how creating new laws will solve the problem when we can't even enforce the ones we have. But then again...maybe I'm not as bright as I think I am.
 
Sad news indeed! I fell in love with Vermont at the instant I visited it (my brother's wedding) and it was my dream retirement place. Well, not anymore...
 
With all the new laws I have to ask one question.

I've said all along gun control will not work. So, what is going to happen in 6 months when someone shoots up another school?
 
Oh...I'm not saying what they are doing makes sense. I'm just saying why I believe they are doing it.

As far as I'm concerned...there are plenty of laws on the books already that should be preventing many of these incidents. They just aren't being enforced. I'm unsure how creating new laws will solve the problem when we can't even enforce the ones we have. But then again...maybe I'm not as bright as I think I am.
I know you weren't. What I was pointing out is that they intentionally chose not to enforce the law or use the Baker act which allowed this to happen. It can sure make a person wonder about these things. Here LE chose not to enforce the law and the FBI basically ignored it. The shooting in Texas the AF didn't do the reporting it was supposed to do. If it had that shooter would have been in the NICS. The FBI was investigating the Pulse Night Club shooter and from what I read that shooters father was an informant for the FBI, also it took SWAT 3 hrs. to enter the club. The Boston Bombers were investigated by the FBI and weren't stopped. It sure makes you go Hmmmm? Gun control never should have been put on the table. What should have been discussed is why law enforcement and other govt. agencies are failing to do their jobs. Is it incompetence or is it some other reason? We'll probably never know for sure since they always go immediately to gun control.
 
With all the new laws I have to ask one question.

I've said all along gun control will not work. So, what is going to happen in 6 months when someone shoots up another school?

Ah, you see that's the great thing about all these ineffectual feel-good proposals, they are self-licking ice cream cones. When the next shooting occurs, and it will (with 200 million responsible gun owners it's impossible not to have a few nut jobs mixed in), the answer won't be "whoops, that didn't work as intended, I guess we should do something else", it will be "See we didn't go far enough, blah blah NRA blah" and the cycle starts over again. But everyone here already knows that...

It seems to me that the worst mass shooting in recent history was perpetrated by a rich 64 year old accountant... Perhaps if we set the minimum age for exercising rights at 65....
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Vermont known as the only state to have constitutional carry in the NE?

Looks like enough people have moved to Vermont to institute some changes.

I hope they brought enough money to keep the 19 ski resorts in business.
 
With all the new laws I have to ask one question.

I've said all along gun control will not work. So, what is going to happen in 6 months when someone shoots up another school?

Six months? You have to be kidding. I'll predict less than 3. The focus of DHS seems to be the border and airports when most of the people dying seems to be in our schools and public gatherings.

I don't know, maybe I have the wrong news feed.
 
Last edited:
Six months? You have to be kidding. I'll predict less than 3. The focus of DHS seems to the border and airports when most of the people dying seems to be in our schools and public gatherings.

I don't know, maybe I have the wrong news feed.

You could be right. It makes me mad that the antis can't see the whole picture. None of what they want will stop anything and yet when it happens again they'll want to take the guns away. This is why I say we shouldn't give an inch.
 
You could be right. It makes me mad that the antis can't see the whole picture. None of what they want will stop anything and yet when it happens again they'll want to take the guns away. This is why I say we shouldn't give an inch.
The wealthy inside their gated communities with their armed protection and security systems and the politicians with their protection can see it but they don't care because what they want is control and an under armed or unarmed populace is much easier to lord over.
 
Universal Background checks = rgistration = confiscation.
Good bye in about 3 years, Vermont.
Unless they repeal UBC.
 
Vermont will become like all the rest of the New England states.

The same thing is happening on the west coast. Blue from Mexico to Canada. It's like some kind of communicable disease that nobody has a cure for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top