The Vermont Senate has passed S.131, a bill that would approve a Burlington charter change banning firearms in any establishment licensed to serve alcohol for on-premises consumption. While narrowly framed as a local safety measure, the legislation carries far broader implications—challenging both Vermont’s adherence to Dillon’s Rule and the plain-language right to bear arms enshrined in the state’s Constitution.
Now in the hands of the House Government Operations Committee, chaired by Rep. Matthew Birong (D Addison-3), S.131 awaits either advancement or quiet death-by-delay. But if passed, it could crack the legal bedrock that has defined Vermont’s state-local relationship for over a century.
Dillon’s Rule: Vermont’s Operating System
Vermont is a strict Dillon’s Rule state, one of only ten where local governments have no inherent authority and must be granted specific powers by the legislature. This doctrine, named for 19th-century Iowa Supreme Court Justice John Forrest Dillon, holds that:
“A municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers: (1) granted in express words; (2) necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and (3) essential to the accomplishment of the corporation’s purposes—not simply convenient, but indispensable.” (NACo Research Brief, Jan. 2004)
This framework was designed to curtail political corruption and policy fragmentation by placing a tight legal leash on municipalities. Over time, many states transitioned to Home Rule models that presume local autonomy. But Vermont has not.
As Eric Davis noted in the Addison Independent noted in 2021, this means that even the most localized policy—zoning changes, public health measures, or in this case, a narrowly targeted firearms ban—requires explicit legislative blessing. That’s what S.131 seeks to do.
What S.131 Does
S.131 approves a Burlington charter amendment that prohibits carrying or possessing a firearm in any building or on any premises licensed to serve alcohol for on-site consumption. Exceptions are made for law enforcement, military personnel, and the business owner if not otherwise prohibited by law.
But here’s the legal kicker: the bill expressly supersedes 24 V.S.A. §§ 2291(8) and 2295, Vermont’s preemption laws which bar municipalities from regulating firearms. Without S.131, Burlington cannot enforce the change—even though the measure passed a public vote.
The Real Battle: State Constitution vs. Local Law
This isn’t just a Dillon’s Rule fight—it’s a constitutional one.
Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution is unambiguous:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…”
Unlike many other states, Vermont’s Constitution includes no qualifiers about the manner of carry, scope of that right, or authority for local restriction. It is a broad, affirmative grant of individual liberty. And that creates a direct conflict: can a town, by local vote and legislative approval, override a constitutional right?
Legal precedent in Vermont suggests not. In City of Montpelier v. Barnett, the Vermont Supreme Court struck down the city’s attempt to restrict swimming, boating, and fishing on Berlin Pond—its sole drinking water source—ruling that only the State had authority to regulate public waters. Even though Montpelier owned the land beneath the pond and sought to protect its public health infrastructure, the Court held that regulatory authority had not been delegated. The decision underscored the strict limits placed on municipalities under Dillon’s Rule.
(City of Montpelier v. Barnett, 2012 VT 59, 192 Vt. 441)
If a municipality can’t regulate fishing in a pond it owns, how can it regulate the constitutionally protected right to bear arms—without triggering a constitutional challenge?
A De Facto Home Rule Backdoor?
Supporters of S.131 argue it reflects local democracy in action—Burlington residents voted for it, and the Legislature’s role is merely ratification. But this sidesteps the deeper issue: once the Legislature starts carving out exceptions to preemption at the request of individual towns, Dillon’s Rule begins to erode.
And more than that: Article 16 becomes subject to local reinterpretation, one town at a time.
Today it’s a firearms ban in bars. Tomorrow? Could Barre restrict magazine capacity? Could Brattleboro pass mandatory registration? Could Montpelier ban open carry on public streets?
If the Legislature sets a precedent that charter amendments can override constitutional protections, the concept of statewide constitutional rights becomes negotiable—and conditional on local sentiment.
What Happens Next
If Rep. Birong does not bring S.131 to a vote this session, the bill remains dormant until January. That delay might be politically convenient. But make no mistake: the precedent is now in play.
If passed, S.131 would do more than authorize a gun ban in Burlington bars. It would:
- Set a precedent for local nullification of state preemption laws
- Invite municipal reinterpretation of constitutional rights
- Erode the legal firewall of Dillon’s Rule in Vermont
- Trigger potential constitutional litigation over Article 16
Final Thought
Vermont’s Constitution doesn’t say “the people have a right to bear arms, unless the city council says otherwise.” It says they have that right—period.
The Legislature now faces a decision: uphold that right uniformly across the state, or begin authorizing its erosion town by town.
S.131 may be small in scope, but its implications are not. In the balance hangs nothing less than the integrity of Vermont’s Constitution—and the future of Dillon’s Rule in the Green Mountain State.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VTpol #GunRights #DillonsRule
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!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply