OFF THE WIRE
This article originally appeared on watchdog.org.
The head of a nationwide sheriffs coalition is calling on Vermont’s law enforcement officers to defy three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago.
“Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such
ordinances,” said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs
and Peace Officers Association. “We’re seeing sheriffs in New York
oppose the Safe Act and Gov. Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York
doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?”
On March 4, Burlington voters joined a push by elected officials
throughout northeastern states to enact stiffer gun control measures. By
a 2-to-1 margin, they banned the carry of firearms in bars and
restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic
disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home.
“It’s astonishing that people are so cavalier about violating the
Second Amendment,” Mack said. “Burlington City Council sounds like they
are just following the trend to do things that are entirely
unconstitutional and go around sheriffs, and go around the laws, or
subvert the laws, or disobey the laws.”
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, which
touts sheriffs as the highest law enforcement officials charged with
defending the rights of citizens in states, claims that 17 police
associations and nearly 500 sheriffs nationwide have pledged to defy
unconstitutional gun control measures.
The thought that Vermont’s top law officers might publicly oppose gun restrictions isn’t a novel idea. Sheriffs in Colorado are refusing to enforce that state’s new background checks and ban on high-capacity magazines. In Connecticut, tens of thousands of residents are refusing to comply with
a new state law that requires registration of guns and high-capacity
magazines. In Saratoga Springs, N.Y., citizens publicly protested the
state’s new SAFE Act last week by burning a thousand gun registration forms.
In Vermont, hundreds – some blazoned in orange hunting attire and hoisting the Gadsden Flag –
rallied at the state Capitol to urge the Legislature to uphold
Vermont’s strong Second Amendment gun laws, among the most robust in the
nation.
When asked if Vermonters might follow the citizens of neighboring
states and refuse to comply with gun control ordinances, Bill Moore, a
policy analyst at the Vermont Traditions Coalition, predicted that
noncompliance would be “highly likely and widespread.”
A standoff between Burlington and Vermont gun owners may be a ways
off, however. According to Moore, Burlington’s ordinances are largely
symbolic because they violate Vermont’s “Sportsmen’s Bill of Rights,” a state law that prohibits municipalities from enacting their own gun laws.
“These ordinances, as the anti-gunners will admit, are intentionally
and specifically meant to challenge the Gun Owners’ Bill of Rights and
Vermont’s current constitutional protections,” Moore told Watchdog.
According to Moore, the Burlington City Council advanced the measures
to create an opportunity for the Legislature to revise Vermont’s strong
Second Amendment protections — an outcome that he said is “not highly
likely.”
Burlington councilman Paul Decelles, one of the few officials to vote
against the proposed changes to the city charter, echoed that
sentiment.
“I think every single one of the councilors recognized that this is
never going to pass the state test, but they pushed this along to have a
broader discussion at the state level. I don’t think any one of them
thinks this is actually going to be upheld,” Decelles told Watchdog.
The mayor of Burlington may disagree. Before the March 4 vote, Mayor
Miro Weinberger issued a statement on the mayor’s office website saying
he supported “charter changes focused on protecting Burlington children,
domestic violence victims, and law enforcement officers.”
Weinberger has been an outspoken member of Michael Bloomberg’s national coalition of pro-gun-control mayors, which advocates for local gun control in the name of safety, but whose members have fled recently due to revelations the organization wants nationwide gun confiscation.
Mack said the mayor’s gun control advocacy contradicts both the U.S. Constitution and recent case law.
“Another thing the mayor of Burlington needs to ask himself is, do the Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald mean
anything at all, that people have the right to keep and bear arms? Does
the Second Amendment mean anything, or are you allowed to act as if it
doesn’t exist just because you don’t agree with the law?”
Despite opponents’ views the ordinances are illegal, it remains
unclear what would happen if Burlington’s measures gain traction at the
Legislature.
“I know our chief of police very well, and I know many cops in
Burlington, and they would never walk into somebody’s house and demand
to see guns,” Decelles said. “They would never do these things. They are
more concerned about real crime.”
