On Thursday, April 24, the Vermont Senate voted 17–12 to approve S.131, a charter change requested by the City of Burlington that would allow the city to prohibit firearms in establishments licensed to serve alcohol. The bill now moves to the House, where it has been assigned to the Government Operations Committee for consideration.
The vote marks the most serious legislative advancement to date of a controversial local policy that has languished since it was first approved by Burlington voters in 2014. A renewed 2025 vote saw more than 86% of Burlington voters favoring a firearms ban in bars. But the debate now facing Montpelier is no longer about Burlington alone — it is about Vermont’s constitutional order.
At the center of that debate is Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution, which states:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…”
Unlike the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Vermont’s language is more personal and more absolute. It affirms not only the right to bear arms for militia service but for individual self-defense, without reference to “sensitive locations” or carve-outs. And yet, S.131 proposes to create exactly that: a zone of exception where a Vermonter’s right to defend themselves no longer applies.
A Constitutional Collision
Under S.131, a law-abiding Vermonter carrying a concealed firearm legally could face criminal penalties — including up to 90 days in jail — simply for entering a bar or licensed venue in Burlington. Even if no other crime is committed, the mere act of carrying for self-defense would become punishable.
Supporters of the bill argue that it is narrowly tailored, citing broader federal trends that permit restrictions in “sensitive places” such as bars and schools. They point to ongoing litigation, including cases like Antonyuk v. James in the Second Circuit, where courts have generally upheld bans on firearms in alcohol-serving establishments — although key rulings in those cases remain unsettled and subject to further review.
But opponents argue that the Vermont Constitution is far clearer and stronger than federal interpretations. Article 16 makes no reference to “sensitive places” or carve-outs. Several senators warned during floor debate that S.131 would erode constitutional protections by making self-defense contingent on location and local preference — a dangerous departure from the plain guarantees Vermonters have always been promised.
The Vermont Supreme Court has never squarely ruled on the scope of Article 16 in the context of local firearm bans. If S.131 becomes law and is challenged, the Court would face a critical choice: stand by the clear constitutional guarantee of self-defense, or follow broader trends that allow “reasonable” restrictions despite the text.
Crime, Cause, and Cover
Beyond constitutional concerns, critics point to a deeper irony: Burlington’s rising crime problem was, in many ways, self-inflicted.
Following the national “defund the police” movement, Burlington’s city government significantly reduced the size of its police force, slashing positions and restricting recruiting. In 2020, Burlington had roughly 90–100 officers; by 2023, that number had dropped below 70, well under the staffing levels necessary for a city of its size.
At the same time, city leadership adopted a more permissive approach toward drug use, homelessness, and public disorder. Predictably, reports of violent crime, assaults, and public disturbances increased — particularly around nightlife establishments.
Now, instead of rebuilding its police force and restoring order, Burlington proposes to disarm peaceful citizens inside bars — even though law-abiding permit holders have not been responsible for Burlington’s crime wave.
Critics argue that S.131 is not about solving crime at all — it’s about appearances. It lets the city claim it is “doing something” without facing the hard realities of its own failed policies.
A Strategy of Collapse?
The deeper concern is whether the legislative push behind S.131 reflects an even more calculated political strategy.
In the 1960s, sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven outlined what became known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy — a deliberate plan to overwhelm institutions, provoke crises, and use the resulting chaos to justify expanded government control.
The basic playbook looks like this:
| Step | Action | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dismantle public safety (slash police funding and staffing) | Increase crime, public disorder, and fear |
| 2 | Tolerate public vices (drug use, open intoxication, vandalism) | Further degrade stability |
| 3 | Allow conditions to deteriorate until normal citizens feel unsafe | Create a “crisis” demanding action |
| 4 | Shift blame from bad policy to “gun violence” | Reframe the problem |
| 5 | Enact restrictions targeting law-abiding citizens | Expand government control over individuals |
| 6 | Normalize rights erosion through repetition | Permanently alter public expectations |
Seen through this lens, Burlington’s trajectory fits alarmingly well. First, public safety is undermined. Then, as crime worsens, rights — not failed leadership — are targeted. Instead of restoring order, the system absorbs the dysfunction and demands greater authority over the citizenry.
Critics of S.131 argue that this is precisely what is happening: not an earnest attempt to fix a safety problem, but a political strategy to use the very chaos they created to justify weakening individual rights.
Legislative Oath vs. Legislative Action
Every member of the General Assembly swears an oath to uphold the Vermont Constitution. The question now facing the House is whether passing S.131 is consistent with that oath — or a betrayal of it.
If the people have a right to bear arms for self-defense, as Article 16 plainly says, how can that right be suspended based on location? Where does the Constitution say your right to protect yourself ends at a barroom door?
Supporters of S.131 argue that it is narrow and justified. But to many Vermonters, the principle is more important than the perimeter. A constitutional right either exists everywhere, or it exists nowhere.
And if a government can create crisis conditions and then use those conditions to revoke your rights, the question is no longer whether you are safe.
The question is whether you are still free.
What Comes Next
As of this writing, S.131 awaits action in the House Government Operations Committee. If it clears the committee and passes the full House, the bill will move to Governor Phil Scott’s desk. Given Scott’s past caution around gun control legislation, a veto is possible.
If the bill becomes law, however, a court challenge seems almost inevitable — and with it, the first real modern test of Article 16’s strength.
At stake is not just Burlington’s policy on firearms in bars. It is whether Vermonters’ right to self-defense, promised without qualification in their Constitution, can survive the slow, deliberate erosion that crisis politics demands.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #vtpoli #guns #burlington
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply