Burlington passes three gun control measures on Town Meeting Day

**qmcorps** · March 10th, 2014, 08:27 AM

Burlington voters helped pass every question except that on the proposed school budget on town meeting day. The proposal included three charter amendments that would seek to enhance gun safety, according to the city of Burlington’s unofficial results.

One of the measures would allow police to seize firearms if they suspect a domestic violence situation. The other two measures would ban firearms from establishments with a liquor license and require gun owners in Burlington to lock up their firearms, according to the ballot.

The Vermont legislature must approve any charter changes according to Vermont law, a process that speaker of the house Shap Smith told WCAX would likely not happen during the current session.

Mayor Miro Weinberger expressed his approval of the passed amendments.

“Together, these votes represent an important step forward for common sense public safety reforms in Burlington and Vermont,” he said.

require gun owners in Burlington to lock up their firearms[/

**BimmerJon** · March 10th, 2014, 08:30 AM

Common sense politicians

They have none

I'll laugh if their house is broken into and they don't have time to unlock their safes to protect themselves

That's the dose of reality they need

**Pilot321** · March 10th, 2014, 08:37 AM

I hope the state can overturn this crap.

**c45man** · March 10th, 2014, 09:01 AM

"The Vermont legislature would have to approve any charter changes" This would be unlikely to be brought up this session. In other words, the Vermont Legislature will probably not approve a good bit of the stupidity of Burlington voters, if any at all.

**GonzoGeezer** · March 10th, 2014, 09:15 AM

Number two and three above would restrict law-abiding citizens opportunities to protect themselves so I agree that those two proposed changes are not sensible. But I think the first one does have some merit to protect innocents from irresponsible gun owners. However, there would have to be some pretty clear-cut rules about the threshold that had to be reached before the police would be allowed to confiscate any weapons and clearly defined procedure to allow the gun owner to petition for their return. But with all that said, I'm sure there are those who believe that any law is a bad law, any move to restrict anything in any way starts us down a slippery slope... I'm not certain there can be a middle ground.

**Pilot321** · March 10th, 2014, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by GonzoGeezer

Number two and three above would restrict law-abiding citizens opportunities to protect themselves so I agree that those two proposed changes are not sensible. But I think the first one does have some merit to protect innocents from irresponsible gun owners. However, there would have to be some pretty clear-cut rules about the threshold that had to be reached before the police would be allowed to confiscate any weapons and clearly defined procedure to allow the gun owner to petition for their return. But with all that said, I'm sure there are those who believe that any law is a bad law, any move to restrict anything in any way starts us down a slippery slope... I'm not certain there can be a middle ground.

In many jurisdictions, just the accusation of Domestic Violence will get your guns taken away by police. No Due Process required.

This language ratchets it up even more to give the police the ability to take away ALL your guns for mere suspicion, not even an accusation is even required. This is a very, very bad law, and gives the police way too much power.