TexasCHLforum.com

Vermont: Republican governor signs gun control package into law.

Among both cheers and jeers, Gov. Phil Scott approved a series of new gun restrictions Wednesday in a public bill signing.

Scott, a Republican who is avowedly a supporter of the Second Amendment, signed bills H.422, S.221, and S.55, into law on the steps of the Statehouse in Montpelier, surrounded by a crowd divided over the issue of gun politics.

The measures would remove guns from those thought to be “at risk” and from those arrested or cited on domestic assault charges as well as place restrictions on magazine capacities, bump stocks and gun sales to those under age 21.

http://www.guns.com/2018/04/12/vermont- ... -into-law/

The most controversial of the three measures, S.55, barely passed the legislature. It will restrict magazine capacity to 15 rounds on handguns and 10 rounds on rifles, ban bump stocks and raise the age to buy guns in Vermont to 21. Magazines already in circulation will be grandfathered while adults 18-to-20 can still purchase rifles and shotguns if they have had military or law enforcement training or have passed a hunter’s education course. There is also a carve-out for Vermont-based gun makers as long as they market their magazines outside of the state.

Looks to me the politicians realized they can pick on the AR-15 more than the pistol so they left the pistol mag limit at pretty much the norm. I know there are pistols that can hold more than 15 rounds from the factory but 15 in 9mm seems pretty standard. How is law enforcement going to know if your 30 round standard AR magazine is grandfathered or not? What about the Springfield XDm owners and their standard 19 round 9mm mags? Do you have to have them date stamped by an approved vendor?

Vermont Governor Scott wrote:“I support the Second Amendment, but I had to ask myself, ‘are we truly doing everything we can to make our kids and communities safer?'”

One of my favorite sayings to my wife that I stole from a TV show, "anything you say before but, is bull..." Once again, a politician ran on one platform and did something totally different when in office. Seems to be the status quo, especially for republican politicians. I guess "shall not be infringed" means just not infringed all at once.

jason812 wrote:

The most controversial of the three measures, S.55, barely passed the legislature. It will restrict magazine capacity to 15 rounds on handguns and 10 rounds on rifles, ban bump stocks and raise the age to buy guns in Vermont to 21. Magazines already in circulation will be grandfathered while adults 18-to-20 can still purchase rifles and shotguns if they have had military or law enforcement training or have passed a hunter’s education course. There is also a carve-out for Vermont-based gun makers as long as they market their magazines outside of the state.

Looks to me the politicians realized they can pick on the AR-15 more than the pistol so they left the pistol mag limit at pretty much the norm. I know there are pistols that can hold more than 15 rounds from the factory but 15 in 9mm seems pretty standard. How is law enforcement going to know if your 30 round standard AR magazine is grandfathered or not? What about the Springfield XDm owners and their standard 19 round 9mm mags? Do you have to have them date stamped by an approved vendor?

Vermont Governor Scott wrote:“I support the Second Amendment, but I had to ask myself, ‘are we truly doing everything we can to make our kids and communities safer?'”

One of my favorite sayings to my wife that I stole from a TV show, "anything you say before but, is bull..." Once again, a politician ran on one platform and did something totally different when in office. Seems to be the status quo, especially for republican politicians. I guess "shall not be infringed" means just not infringed all at once.

The definition of "shall not be infringed" is controlled by the ones doing the infringing.

We need to take back control of the conversation.

A result of his decision:
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/ ... r-governor
https://vtdigger.org/2018/04/10/rodgers ... -governor/

I wonder what this will do to Vermont's standing. From one of the most NRA positive to .....

TexasJohnBoy wrote:A result of his decision:
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/ ... r-governor
https://vtdigger.org/2018/04/10/rodgers ... -governor/

This comment sounds familiar.

“When I was young it seemed like that people who moved here, moved here because they loved it here and they embraced our values and our heritage, and didn’t want to change them,” he said. “It seems now like we’ve been overpopulated by people for different reasons and aim to take much of that away.”

Vermont's gun laws always seemed too good to be true.

rp_photo wrote:Vermont's gun laws always seemed too good to be true.

They were more restrictive than the founding father intended for ANY state to be... which highlights what the jackwagon politicians have done to us over the last 50-? years.

flechero wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Vermont's gun laws always seemed too good to be true.

They were more restrictive than the founding father intended for ANY state to be... which highlights what the jackwagon politicians have done to us over the last 50-? years.

flechero wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Vermont's gun laws always seemed too good to be true.

They were more restrictive than the founding father intended for ANY state to be... which highlights what the jackwagon politicians have done to us over the last 50-? years.

Which portions were restrictive? I seem to recall they have had permitless concealed carry at least since the '80's. I can't think of any other state which has. In Texas you couldn't even carry a handgun at all until 1996, unless you met a very few exceptions.

ScottDLS wrote:

flechero wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Vermont's gun laws always seemed too good to be true.

They were more restrictive than the founding father intended for ANY state to be... which highlights what the jackwagon politicians have done to us over the last 50-? years.

Which portions were restrictive? I seem to recall they have had permitless concealed carry at least since the '80's. I can't think of any other state which has. In Texas you couldn't even carry a handgun at all until 1996, unless you met a very few exceptions.

I meant ANY restriction- like NFA items, GCA '68 and the like... as I get older I realize more and more that the founding fathers were really intelligent people!

flechero wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

flechero wrote:

rp_photo wrote:Vermont's gun laws always seemed too good to be true.

They were more restrictive than the founding father intended for ANY state to be... which highlights what the jackwagon politicians have done to us over the last 50-? years.

Which portions were restrictive? I seem to recall they have had permitless concealed carry at least since the '80's. I can't think of any other state which has. In Texas you couldn't even carry a handgun at all until 1996, unless you met a very few exceptions.

I meant ANY restriction- like NFA items, GCA '68 and the like... as I get older I realize more and more that the founding fathers were really intelligent people!

I figured such, but it should be pointed out that the GCA and NFA are Federal laws and I don't think Vermont had any analogs (as Texas does for NFA), until their recent legislation. So you really can't blame it on Vermont.