The Vermont Legislature is currently considering a charter change for the City of Burlington that may be a first of its kind—not because it stops crime, but because it punishes citizens before they commit one.
S.131, introduced by Senator Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden Central), seeks to amend Burlington’s city charter to prohibit anyone from possessing a firearm in or around establishments licensed to serve alcohol on premises. The bill creates both criminal and civil penalties and grants law enforcement the power to seize firearms based on mere probable cause. The burden then falls on the owner to go to court and prove they are innocent—or lose the property to the city.
That’s not hyperbole. That’s the text of the bill.
According to Section 2 of S.131, “no person may carry or possess a firearm… in any building or on any real property or parking area under the ownership or control of an establishment licensed to serve alcohol on its premises.” Law enforcement may seize the weapon immediately. If the owner doesn’t appeal the forfeiture in 30 days, the city gets to keep it.
No Crime, No Trial — Just Forfeiture
There’s just one problem—well, several, but let’s start with the Constitution.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) ruled that governments cannot impose gun restrictions unless they are rooted in “the history and tradition of firearm regulation” at the time of the founding. There’s no historical tradition of cities banning firearms across large swaths of privately owned property merely because alcohol is served there.
There’s also the matter of state preemption. Vermont law, under 24 V.S.A. §§ 2291(8) and 2295, prohibits municipalities from regulating firearms. S.131 tries to leapfrog that by slipping the ban into the Burlington charter and asking the Legislature to sign off.
But the most revealing problem with S.131 is the logic it implies. If Burlington can criminalize lawful possession of a firearm because someone might commit a crime, what else might we criminalize?
The Next Logical Steps: Keys, Pockets, and Backpacks
In anticipation of the precedent set by S.131, we should brace ourselves for the next round of charter amendments from Burlington. Perhaps something like:
- S.132 – An act prohibiting the possession of car keys by any person entering a bar, on the theory that they might drive under the influence. Anyone found with keys on their person may be detained on probable cause. Keys will be seized. If you want them back, take it up with the Civil Division of Superior Court.
- S.133 – An act banning the wearing of backpacks, handbags, or any clothing with pockets in a retail establishment, on the basis that theft might occur. Jeans, dresses, jackets—if they’ve got pockets, you’re a suspect. Officers may search and seize personal items and retain them unless the owner successfully appeals within 30 days.
- S.134 – A common-sense amendment prohibiting the act of shooting or stabbing another person. Oh wait—we already have that one. It’s called the criminal code. Has been for quite some time.
A More Direct Solution? Ban Alcohol Altogether
And if Senator Baruth and company are genuinely concerned about the risks of alcohol-fueled environments, there’s a more direct solution than disarming sober citizens. Make Burlington a dry town.
That’s right — update the charter to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol and drugs within city limits. Eliminate the threat at the source. No alcohol, no alcohol-induced violence. Simple.
Sure, it might devastate downtown nightlife, kill restaurant revenue, and drive out tourism, but if the concern is truly about safety and not symbolism, then this would be the bold move to make. After all, we tried Prohibition once. It went great.
And if alcohol can’t be trusted around firearms, why should it be trusted at all? The logic only works one way if you’re trying to engineer behavior instead of enforcing laws.
Rights Shouldn’t Be Conditional
This is the underlying absurdity of S.131. We already have laws against assault, murder, reckless endangerment, and yes, even illegal possession of firearms. What Burlington proposes is not the enforcement of law, but the enforcement of assumptions—disarming citizens because of where they walk, not what they’ve done.
The ordinance doesn’t target criminals; it targets law-abiding people who happen to be carrying legally and happen to enter a place where alcohol is served—even if they don’t drink. It offers no protection against those who ignore the law, because by definition, criminals don’t follow gun bans.
Instead, it criminalizes the idea that someone might commit a crime and asks the public to accept civil forfeiture without conviction, criminal penalties without action, and public safety by presumption.
If the Legislature passes this charter amendment, it will be giving Burlington—and perhaps any municipality watching—a green light to govern not by the rule of law, but by the rule of suspicion.
Senator Baruth may mean well. So might the co-sponsors of S.131, if any sign on. But well-meaning infringements are still infringements.
The Constitution doesn’t protect behavior the government likes. It protects the rights of people the government might not. And that’s exactly what this bill forgets.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPolitics #SecondAmendment #PreCrimePolicy
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