Pass along Radio Ads airing all over Burlington area (lawn signs available)

 

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs is running

the ads above, which are attachments to this E-mail,on

WDEV and WOKO, as well other Burlington radio stations.

 

There are two 60 second ads, which are separately and

two 30 second ads, which are running together, in a 60

second slot.

 

The federation may move ads in or out the rotation of

play or amend the current ads.  More ads might be added.

 

Burlington Free Press reporter April Burbank called to

ask about the "large" spending the federation is spending

on the ads and signs.  Our reply: Burlington had attacked

our Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights, we take the defense

of that law very seriously.  We are working to protect it.

 

Look for lawn signs arriving in Burlington. Want a lawn sign?

Ask for your sign at: Dattlio's, B.J.'s and the Powder Horn,

starting on Thursday morning.

 

For more information or to show your support go to:

                    www.vtfsc.org

 

Like us on Facebook "Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs"

Burlington Free Press: Where is the Due Process?

Purchase Image

A sign at Howard and St. Paul streets in Burlington urges voters to support ballot items intended to increase gun safety. / JOEL BANNER BAIRD/Free Press

Written by Aki Soga, Free Press Ediorial Page Editor

Domestic abuse is a critical problem made even worse by the presence of guns and other weapons that leads to serious injury or death.

 

Yet the Burlington solution — a Charter change that would allow weapons to be seized in suspected domestic abuse cases — leaves uncomfortable questions about the scope of powers being granted to the police.

 

A “typo” in the proposed Charter change only adds to the image of an effort high on emotion but short on attention to detail.

 

The Charter change grants the authority to seize property on the spot whenever “a police officer has probable cause to believe that a person has been the victim of domestic abuse.”

 

The change on the Town Meeting Day ballot is overly broad and allows confiscation without requiring formal charges or proof that the weapons present an imminent threat to persons.

 

Where is the due process?

 

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, and calls for the authorities to obtain a warrant “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

The city should do everything possible to reduce domestic violence, but sacrificing our basic constitutional rights is no remedy.

 

Core of the Charter change, one of three relating to gun regulation on the Town Meeting Day ballot, reads: “Whenever, within the City of Burlington, a police office has probable cause to believe that a person has been the victim of domestic abuse, ... the office may confiscate any firearm, ammunition, or deadly or dangerous weapon, as defined in 13 V.S.A. SS4601, in the immediate control or possession of the person alleged to be the abuser.”

 

City Attorney Eileen Blackwood says the reference to sub-section 4601 is a mistake and the definition for “deadly or dangerous weapon” can be found under 4016. Blackwood said in an email the mistake was “just a typo” that will be corrected and should have no affect on the validity of the ballot item.

Secretary of State Jim Condos says the deadline for producing Town Meeting Day ballots has passed, meaning no correction can appear on the ballot.

 

The state statute in question defines “dangerous or deadly weapon” as “any firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.”

 

The definition arguably could cover everything from guns and kitchen knives to baseball bats and vicious dogs.

 

The other question is how broadly “possession” might be defined — on the person, in the room, or locked in the trunk of the car in the garage?

 

The unanswered questions, as well as the typo, say the Charter change is an unfinished document. As presented to voters, the gun seizure ordinance represents the wrong approach to battling domestic violence.

 

Join the conversation. Comment online at BurlingtonFreePress.com or send a letter to the editor to letters@freepressmedia.com. Contact Aki Soga at asoga@freepressmedia.com. Follow him on Twitter at @asoga

Hunter Education Class- Mendon Fish and Game Club

MENDON FISH & GAME CLUB

2014 HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

LOCATION: MENDON FISH & GAME CLUBHOUSE

EAST PITTSFORD ROAD

Pittsford, Vermont

DATE/DAY                    TIMES

 4/1: Tuesday                          6:30pm-9:15pm

 4/3: Thursday                        6:30pm-9:15pm

 4/8: Tuesday                          6:30pm-9:15pm

4/10:Thursday                        6:30pm-9:15pm

4/12:Saturday                        8am-Noon

Pre-Registration Required Before March 31st

Call Larry Sears at (802) 775-1733

VFSC Radio Ads

                                                 Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs

                                                                  www.vtfsc.org

                                                                   

These two radio ads began playing on at 6 AM on WDEV, a station that hits a large broadcast area,

including the Burlington and Montpelier areas.  And if you think this is just a gun control in Burlington 

problem and does not impact you in your town you are wrong, dead wrong.

 

Yesterday the E-mail alert below went out from a national gun control organization to Vermont antis.

 

"But this isn't just Burlington's fight. Whatever happens to these three proposed changes will help set the stage for reforming Vermont’s gun laws."

 

This is an attack on the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights, state law effective since1988, which protects

guns, ammo, reloading, shooting, hunting, fishing and trapping from municipal attack.  In 2006 range

protection from municipalities political driven whim was added.  Burlington is attacking all of your rights.

 

If Burlington gets their exemption to this law, other municipalities will seek the same.

 

These "NO" Burlington ballot items are 6, 7, 8.  Got friends in Burlington?  Tell them to vote "NO"

 

Protect your Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights.  Check it out at www.vtfsc.org

BFP article: Burlington charter change proposal contains error

Did anyone think that the city hall staff would admit there was a legal

problem in this material error?  This is exactly why the legislature was

right to deprive municipalities of the authority to regulate firearms.  

 

Burlington cannot or will not comply with the Vermont Public Records

law and they want the authority to regulate firearms?  Unbelievable.

 

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20140219/NEWS02/302190044/Transposition-trouble-Burlington-charter-change-proposal-contains-error

Transposition trouble? Burlington charter change proposal contains error

City attorney says mistake poses no problem for gun-related measure's validity

 

Green Mountain Animal Defenders Attack VT F&W Conservation Camps

                          Conservation Camps Tradition Under Attack

                                                  802-828-2228

                                            Rep. Patrick Brennan

                                                  "Yes on H.589"

 

The Green Mountain Animal Defenders have mounted a campaign to

defeat the bill H.589.  This bill is a omnibus fish and wildlife bill that

addresses many issues of importance to Vermont's outdoor sporting/

shooting community. 

 

This anti-hunting, anti-trapping group is adamantly opposing a section

in H.589 that would create a new Vermont conservation license plate.

 

The Fish & Wildlife Department is currently developing three conservation

license plate images: a brook trout representing the watershed grant

program, a loon representing non-game programs, and a white-tailed deer

to help fund the Green Mountain Conservation Camps.

 

VT F&W has run the two conservation camps for decades.  The Kehoe

Camp in Bomoseen and the Buck Lake Camp in Woodbury.  Generations

of youngsters have attended these camps and enjoyed a great educational

program.  They learn outdoors skills and hunting/firearms handling & safety. 

 

Now, as Vermonters would have a chance to have a license plate with a

deer and at the same time fund the two conservation camps, this group

has jumped to attack this legislation because they oppose youngsters

being taught hunting and trapping in the elective course curriculum at

the Kehoe and Woodbury Conservation Camps. 

 

The GMAD web site addressing this campaign against H.589 is below.

 

There was also a provision in H.589 for decreasing the VA disability rating

for disabled veterans to receive a free hunting and fishing license.  Now,

this recognition of our veterans is also under attack by the GMAD.

 

If you want to show your support for a new Vermont white-tailed deer

conservation license plate, please call 802-828-2228 and leave the polite

message for Rep. Patrick Brennan "Yes on H.589"   Pat is the House of

Representative leader of the Vermont Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus. 

View this email in your browser Reserve Your Spot for Humane Lobby Day 2014    Vermont's animal advocates will soon fill the halls of the Vermont State House in Montpelier for Humane Lobby Day 2014 on February 25th. You can be in on this exciting action, too! Join your HSUS state director Joanne Bourbeau for one day that can make all the difference for animals (such as influencing legislators to make the right decisions on future amendments and bills that threaten animal welfare, as H.589 does). Reserve your spot by clicking here! Facebook Website Email "The Fish & Wildlife's Conservation Camps' curriculum includes instruction on fishing, hunting and trapping..." These plates mean something to those making a donation to have them. Those funds should be used toward true conservation, as intended.  "This is misleading to the general public, who believes that their purchase is being used for non-consumptive purposes." "Examples include the recently injured owl rehabilitated in Shelburne after being caught in leghold trap; dogs like Kane, who was recently trapped and killed in Newbury; and endangered species, such as marten and lynx." A victim of trapping.   Conservation License Plates Are Intended to Fund Non-Game and Watershed Projects, NOT Trapping Courses!   The intent and purpose of our state's Conservation License Plate is to fund non-game and watershed projects and is embraced by many Vermonters who support those programs in an effort to protect wildlife.   The Problem   H.589, an Act related to hunting, fishing & trapping, would allow the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to redirect a portion of these motor-vehicle plates’ proceeds to their Conservation Camp Fund (when, as they contend, there is a surplus in the non-game and watershed accounts). The Conservation Camps' curriculum includes instruction on fishing, hunting and trapping practices and is in direct conflict with the plates' stated purpose of funding non-game and watershed programs. This is misleading to the general public, who believes that their purchase is being used for non-consumptive purposes. If the Fish & Wildlife Department (F&W) would like to collect funds to promote hunting, fishing or trapping initiatives, GMAD believes they should have to apply for a brand-new plate type and follow the proper process in place to do so.  What You Can Do   GMAD is very concerned because an amended version of H.589 (enter H.589 in the search bar) has passed out of House Fish & Wildlife committee. Now the bill is scheduled for a vote in the full House on Tuesday, 2/18, and it is critical that YOU let your House Representative(s) know about your concerns before this legislation proceeds any further. You can find your House Representatives' contact info here. Please contact them NOW, and ask them to reject the provision in H.589 that diverts funds from the conservation plates' non-game initiatives to instruction on hunting, fishing and trapping. Talking Points ~ Problems with the Bill as it Relates to Conservation Plates We have provided some talking (or e-mailing) points for you to share with your lawmakers. You may pick one or more of these, but what's most important is that your Representative knows of your concern. F&W should not be allowed to piggyback on an existing plate by creating a new plate design that directly conflicts the original intent of the funds: protecting non-game and watershed only. F&W should have to apply for a new plate if they want to fund a different program. While many may argue that hunting may be considered a form of conservation, trapping is the antithesis of conservation, as it indiscriminately maims and kills non-target species. Examples include the recently injured owl rehabilitated in Shelburne after being caught in leghold trap; dogs like Kane, who was recently trapped and killed in Newbury; and endangered species, such as marten and lynx.     These decisions don't serve the public's best interests.  It is a disservice to Vermonters who purchased these plates based on the very info currently displayed on F&W's website.   It is unclear who would define when, and if, "surplus" funds are available. Environmental organizations and non-game animal organizations, such as GMAD, are aware of many unmet needs, so a true surplus is extremely unlikely.  If you have any questions, please contact us.  We'd be happy to walk you through the issue and address any concerns you may have. Please keep us posted on any correspondence you send or receive about this bill. We cannot stress enough how important it is that this version of H.589 be amended or the bill be defeated in its current form. We owe it to our wildlife and to the health of Vermont’s watershed-preservation efforts!   For the animals, THANK YOU! Sharon MacNair, President   Copyright © 2014 Green Mountain Animal Defenders, All rights reserved. You are receiving this because you signed up to receive e-mails from Green Mountain Animal Defenders in the past Our mailing address is: Green Mountain Animal Defenders PO Box 4577 Burlington, VT 05406 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

Vermont Public Records Request to Burlington

 

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

16 Millstone Blvd, Barre, VT 05641

(802) 272-8544

 

To:       Bob Rusten, Chief Administrative Officer of Burlington

 

Date:     February 17, 2014

 

Re:        VFSC Freedom of Information – Public Records Request

 

Mr. Rusten -

 

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (VFSC) would like to review with the City of Burlington the approach the City is using to handle the VFSC’s Public Records Request (PRR).

 

The VFSC requests that the City respond to this letter in accordance with the City's obligation under Title 1 Section 318(d): "a public agency shall consult with the person making the request in order to clarify the request or to obtain additional information that will assist the public agency in responding to the request and, when authorized by this subchapter, in facilitating production of the requested record for inspection or copying."

 

At the current time, the VFSC believes it understands that for those documents stored electronically, the City executes various searches so as to find documents and records that may be responsive to the VFSC’s PRR.  For the purposes of this letter, the VFSC will refer to this phase as “Step 1 – Initial Record Selection”.

 

Against the set of documents and records resulting from Step 1, the VFSC believes that the City then initially reviews each and every document or record so as to ascertain if the document or record might contain any material that the City feels would make it exempt, and the City additionally ascertains whether or not the document or record contains any material that the City feels would require redaction.  For the purposes of this letter, the VFSC will refer to this phase as “Step 2 – Initial Review”.

 

If the result of Step 2 finds no need to exempt or redact, the VFSC believes it understands that the document is then released and made available to the VFSC for review and inspection.

 

If however the result of Step 2 finds that any given document or record may contain material that might make that document or record exempt, or the Step 2 review finds that any given document or record may contain material that might require redaction, the VFSC believes it understands that the City sets that document or record aside for a later, and more detailed review by the City.  For the purpose of this letter, the VFSC will refer to this phase as “Step 3 – Final Review”.

 

If the Step 3 review by the City determines that the document or record does not require exemption or redaction, the VFSC believes that the document is released for subsequent review and examination.  If however the Step 3 review determines that an exemption or redaction is required, then the City updates what the City has referred to as the “Exemption Log” with information regarding the exemption or redaction, and then handles the document or record as the Step 3 – Final Review determination requires.    

 

Based on the above, the VFSC has the following specific questions that we respectfully request answers to at your earliest convenience:

 

1.    Is the process described above a generally accurate description of the process the City is using?

2.    If the answer to Question #1 above is “no”, then the VFSC respectfully requests a brief written description of the City’s processing, using “Step” descriptions similar to what the VFSC has attempted to do above.

3.    If the answer to Question #1 above is “yes”, then at any given point in time the City either has documents and records that are pending a final determination, or it has no such documents pending a final determination. 

While it may be “convenient” for the City to set documents aside in order to make a final determination on them at some nebulous point in the future, this is not in keeping with 1 V.S.A. § 318 (2) which indicates that a determination of exempt records must occur within 3 business days.  While 1 V.S.A § 318 (5) does allow for an extension in making an exempt determination under “unusual circumstances”; the VFSC notes that this section of statute requires that the City provide written notice of the reasons for such a delay, and the VFSC does not believe it has ever been given such written notice. Even if such notice has been given – 1 V.S.A. § 318 (5) only grants a 10 day extension on making a final determination.

Given that the nature of the VFSC’s PRR is comprehensive, and that the City is already far behind the strict deadlines for response contained in the public records law, the VFSC formally requests that VFSC representatives be given access to the current copy of the Exemption Log whenever they schedule an onsite request visit – with these visits usually occurring with several days notice to the City.

Further, and again given the comprehensive nature of the VFSC’s PRR and the City's tardiness in meeting the statutory timelines for response, the VFSC formally requests that the VFSC representatives additionally be given the current count of documents and records which are awaiting a final determination at the time of the VFSC scheduled visit, and the VFSC additionally requests assurances from the City that the City has not, and will not in the future, delay making a final determination within 3 business days.

Given that the Statement of Policy regarding 1 V.S.A. Chapter 5, Sub-Chapter 3 indicates that its provisions will be “liberally construed”, does the City agree to the VFSC’s formal request to make available to VFSC personnel both a copy of the current version of the Exemption Log, and additionally the count of documents and records pending final determination, when VFSC personnel present themselves onsite?

4.      From the records the City has produced to date, it is crystal clear that City Councilor Blais was pivotal in the creation of the situation that set the stage for the VFSC’s PRR.  For example:  Certain City records show that Mr. Blais was working in conjunction with Councilor Brennan on topics concerning Firearms as early as April of 2012, yet there is a complete dearth of any emails, notes or documents from or to Norm Blais, or between Councilors Blais and Brennan, that concern firearms prior to December 17, 2012, and it really doesn’t make much sense that this would be the case.

The VFSC is therefore skeptical that Councilor Blais has been forthcoming with all material that would be responsive to our request, including all emails, notes, documents or any other material.

Will the City please review this situation and either provide any and all material which may have been overlooked or not forwarded to the City by Councilor Blais, and also provide a written response concerning this specific question?

5.      The VFSC requests information on whether or not Judith Stephany was in the employ of the City for the period of time between January 1, 2012 and the date of this letter, in any capacity.

 

Sincerely,

Evan Hughes

Vice President - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

 

CC:       Burlington City Mayor Miro Weinberger

             Burlington City Chief of Staff

             Burlington City Attorney  Eileen Blackwood

             Burlington Assistant City Attorney Eugene Bergman

             Burlington City Councilors

 

Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs Annual Legislative Mixer

 

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs Annual Legislative Mixer at the

Vermont State House on Thursday, March 13, from 4:30-8:00 PM. 

The VFSC hosts its annual mixer in the state house, as an opportunity for the

outdoor sporting/shooting community to speak with its elected officials and the

representatives of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. 

The VFSC mixer is a good chance to see old friends and get information updates.

The VFSC has booked the state house cafeteria and will provide snacks, coffee

and tea. The cater will also operate a cash bar. 

Burlington Public Records Report Visit #16

 

 

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

www.vtfsc.org

Report #16 of On-site VT Public Records Review of Burlington’s Anti-Gun Proposals

Burlington City Hall, 2/4 11:00 AM – 3:00 PM

On Tuesday February 4^th, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (VFSC) representatives Chris Bradley and Evan Hughes were again at Burlington City Hall for the continued review of Burlington documents and records that are responsive to the Vermont Public Records request that the VFSC originally filed on September 19^th 2013.

As the City of Burlington’s search for records moves forward, each document must be individually reviewed by the City’s Legal Counsel so that they can make a determination of whether or not the document may be exempt, or they can otherwise make a determination as to whether or not portions of the document need to be redacted.

Initially, the City reported Exemptions and Redactions through a series of letters, but due to the sheer volume of exemptions and redactions being claimed by the City, the City began reporting these in an Excel spreadsheet which they referred to as the “Exemption Log”. Across December 2013 the City began automatically providing the VFSC with an updated version of this “Exemption Log” each time the VFSC went onsite, and as of January 3^rd the City reported a total of 304 documents that were either exempted or which had portions redacted.

Subsequent to the January 3^rd however, the City stopped automatically producing the Exemption Log on each of the VFSC’s visits. In response, on January 22^nd the VFSC specifically requested this document to be ready for us on our next scheduled visit of January 27th. Even though this is an Excel spreadsheet that is known to exist; a document which is known to be a “work-in-progress”, a document that is obviously readily available to certain City staff and could have been easily given to the VFSC or sent to the VFSC as a simple email attachment, the City stonewalled producing this document across multiple verbal and written requests.

As a result of Tuesday’s meeting, the City has finally produced an updated “Exemption Log”, 9 business days after it was specifically requested – so much for honoring the letter and intent of Vermont’s Public Records Law. Per statute that document should have been immediately produced, but given that the number of exempted and redacted documents has now swollen to 535 documents, perhaps there is another reason for this delay.

As previously suggested, the VFSC believed that the reason for this was that the City was purposefully delaying making any decisions on “difficult” documents, and we therefore asked some very pointed questions of City Attorney Eileen Blackwood.

What the VFSC discovered is that as the City progresses through the search for responsive documents, they make an initial determination as to whether or not the document may be exempt, and in many, many cases this is very easy. For example: Any one of a large number of citizen emails to various City officials voicing their opposition to the proposed Charter Changes (there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of those). If there is no question that it is NOT exempt, then they immediately release. However if there is any question about the document, the City sets it aside into a pile that then waits to be reviewed in greater detail at some nebulous point in the future. While City Attorney Blackwood did acknowledge that this is their strategy, she specifically declined to respond to how big the “set-aside” pile was, and opined that she didn’t think she had to provide that information.

So, while the City can make a show of producing documents, a great many of these documents are “fluff”, with the City knowingly delaying the time and expense of making their final determination.

The bottom line is that there are now 535 documents which the public is not allowed to see; with all 535 documents being the result of what is theoretically supposed to be a fully “open” process. While 535 “secret” documents is a staggering number, the VFSC is absolutely certain that there will be more as the City wades into the results of the expanded search (the VFSC previously had to point out to the City that their initial searches were seriously flawed as was previously reported).

Just what is it in these 535 documents that MUST be kept secret? We already know that they purposefully set about to bypass not one but two State Statutes. We already know that the Charter Change Committee was heavily influenced by both in state and out-of-state groups. We already know that the Charter Change Committee purposefully only sought input from specific groups while purposefully excluding others, and that they specifically scheduled their meetings so as to purposefully exclude working citizens that might otherwise come to their meetings so that they could weigh in on what they referred to as the “gun issue”.

The Federation’s effort in Burlington will continue until we are satisfied that we have done more than just due diligence such that we can be fully confident that we have uncovered all there is to know and documented same.

Chris Bradley & Evan Hughes

Say "No to H.706"

 

Please call the Sgt-At-Arms at the Vermont State House and politely leave the message "No to H.706" for your

legislator and/or your pick of the legislators listed below.

 

Current Vermont law makes it a crime to knowingly bring a gun into a school building or onto a school bus.

Current Vermont law makes it a crime to bring a gun onto school property with the intent to harm another.

13 VSA Section 4004

 

Current Vermont law requires school personnel to report a student with gun on school property to law enforcement.

Current Vermont law requires school personnel to take disciplinary action with a student a gun on school property

and shall expel from the school for not less than one calendar year any student who brings a firearm to school or

possesses a firearm at school. However, the school board may modify the expulsion on a case by case basis.

16 VSA Section 1166

 

H.706 in another unnecessary gun control bill that would make criminals out of decent, peaceful Vermonters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The St. Albans Messenger has run the story below on the recently released gun control bill: H.706

 

http://www.samessenger.com/legislature-guns-on-school-grounds/

Folks, here is a gun control bill that is essentially the same bill we had a very serious battle over

in the 1999-2000 term of the Vermont Legislature.  The law as it exists now was the result of

all of that review and work, this law serves Vermont very well.  It is 13 V.S.A. Section 4004.

 

Now the gun control element is back trying to get our legislators to go through this all over again.

 

Please call the Sgt-At-Arms at the Vermont State House and politiely leave the message

"No to H.706" to your legislator and/or your pick of the legislators listed below.

H.0706 - An act relating to prohibiting the possession of firearms and other dangerous or deadly weapons on any school property

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Bills/Intro/H-706.pdf

 

Read the bill very carefully.  Schools own large tracts of land in this state.

If this bill were to pass into law it would cut off those lands to hunting or

traveling over with a "weapon" 

 

Read the definition of "Owned by the school" for an insight into how

expansive this ban on weapons would be for Vermonter.  If you are

on your way to fishing and you cross land of the definitions of what

this law would create, it is 1 year imprisonment and/or $1,000.00 fine.

 

Your 17 year old son or daughter going hunting or fishing, arrested

and/or fined for being on land that they did not know was subject to

this unneeded law. 

 

This bill is a solution in search of a problem. 

 

The sponsors on the bill are: 

 

Kathleen Keenan of St. Albans City

Carolyn Branagan of Georgia

Cynthia Weed of Enosburgh

Daniel Connor of Fairfield

Michel Consejo of Sheldon

Eillen "Lynn" Dickson of St. Albans City

Peter Fagan of Rutland City

Jill Knowinski of Burlington

Kristina Michelsen of Hardwick

Tristen Toleno of Brattleboro

 

Calling the State House at 802-828-2228 to leave a "No to H.706" message.

 

If one of these folks is your representative you need to call them

and relate that you oppose H.706.  Remember, these are politicians.

They might well call you back and try to talk you into support some

aspects of this bill or other gun control legislation.  "No to H.706"

 

For action with other legislators look below.

 

Do Not Take A Quiz!

 

Nor do you have to take a "quiz" of theirs on gun issues.  You can state

that you oppose this bill and any other gun control legislation that they

bring up. 

 

If these are not your representative(s) leave your representative the

same "No to H.706" message.  If you do not know your representative

ask the Sgt-At-Arms staffer answering the telephone.

 

.

 

 

          

:

 

 

 

Contact your Vermont State Legislators to say "No to H.706"

The St. Albans Messenger has run the story below on the recently released gun control bill: H.706

 

http://www.samessenger.com/legislature-guns-on-school-grounds/

Folks, here is a gun control bill that is essentially the same bill we had a very serious battle over

in the 1999-2000 term of the Vermont Legislature.  The law as it exists now was the result of

all of that review and work, this law serves Vermont very well.  It is 13 V.S.A. Section 4004.

 

Now the gun control element is back trying to get our legislators to go through this all over again.

H.0706 - An act relating to prohibiting the possession of firearms and other dangerous or deadly weapons on any school property

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Bills/Intro/H-706.pdf

 

Read the bill very carefully.  Schools own large tracts of land in this state.

If this bill were to pass into law it would cut off those lands to hunting or

traveling over with a "weapon" 

 

Read the definition of "Owned by the school" for an insight into how

expansive this ban on weapons would be for Vermonter.  If you are

on your way to fishing and you cross land of the definitions of what

this law would create, it is 1 year imprisonment and/or $1,000.00 fine.

 

Your 17 year old son or daughter going hunting or fishing, arrested

and/or fined for being on land that they did not know was subject to

this unneeded law. 

 

This bill is a solution in search of a problem. 

 

The sponsors on the bill are: 

 

Kathleen Keenan of St. Albans City

Carolyn Branagan of Georgia

Cynthia Weed of Enosburgh

Daniel Connor of Fairfield

Michel Consejo of Sheldon

Eillen "Lynn" Dickson of St. Albans City

Peter Fagan of Rutland City

Jill Knowinski of Burlington

Kristina Michelsen of Hardwick

Tristen Toleno of Brattleboro

 

Calling the State House at 802-828-2228 to leave a "No to H.706" message.

 

If one of these folks is your representative you need to call them

and relate that you oppose H.706.  Remember, these are politicians.

They might well call you back and try to talk you into support some

aspects of this bill or other gun control legislation.  "No to H.706"

 

For action with other legislators look below.

 

Do Not Take A Quiz!

 

Nor do you have to take a "quiz" of theirs on gun issues.  You can state

that you oppose this bill and any other gun control legislation that they

bring up. 

 

If these are not your representative(s) leave your representative the

same "No to H.706" message.  If you do not know your representative

ask the Sgt-At-Arms staffer answering the telephone.

 

.

 

 

          

: