Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.  

Our Vermont representatives (though I don’t think most of them represent anyone but themselves and the George Soros-funded backers funding their campaigns) are once again villainizing gun owners in Vermont. So far in this session, they’ve worked on their first two bills, S. 30 and H. 133 as they supposedly relate to safety.

I approached my so-called state representatives here in central Vermont with an email. As to their attempt to further expand protections to victims of domestic abuse and what-not, the H. 133 proposal would allow a plaintiff alleging a fear of harm from someone to appear before a judge, asking the court to remove the firearms from their alleged potential attacker, without the accused being able to contest the allegation with the judge, which is unconstitutional.

I 100 percent agree that a protective order should be granted by the court if the threat is found to be real. My argument is that the alleged potential assailant must also be allowed to testify, before the same judge, offering why the plaintiff’s claim of the fear of harm is not credible. Lacking this constitutional right to appear, heck, the state legislators supporting this proposed law could approach the court claiming a fear of any opposing voice, which, with this proposed law, appears possible!

One of my (so-called) representatives, Tom Walz, D-R, Washington-3, responded to my email, presenting me with a non-focused argument, totally avoiding the root of the problem in this law, i.e., the right to defend oneself in a court of law. My initial email to him (and the others) is that I agreed that this would be a good law, as an ill-intended defendant is unlikely to appear before the court, and thus, the protection order and related seizure of firearms promulgated.

As written, this is a direct attack on a Vermonter’s right to a fair trial, resulting in the stripping away their right to bear arms as codified in our Vermont Constitution: “... the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.”

Support our journalism. Subscribe today. →

Lastly, the other bill, S. 30, as amended, now provides for a study on the regulation/ban of firearms in the “Capitol Complex, which would be an extensive section of downtown Montpelier, including streets, sidewalks and private property.” This also started out as an unconstitutional ban of firearms in the Vermont House, and now the study on banning firearms has mushroomed into the much larger “Capitol Complex,” which is a very large section of the downtown and business district.

No law will stop a criminal from going into the capitol area with a gun. As proof, all one has to do is look at the mass shooting statistics in this country. Near all attackers choose to do so in gun-free zones, where there will be little or no possibility of resistance. If our legislators protect our rights, and do not pass unlawful edicts, it is unlikely that their fears of the governed are warranted. If they feel that they are, they are probably doing wrong. Otherwise, they should perhaps properly train to carry their own firearm, (sic., education, not legislation), which remains a sacred and protected right in the U.S., and more definitively in Vermont, and leave our law-abiding gun owners alone.

Here is the statute definition of “Capitol Complex”:

If you agree, please phone the Vermont Statehouse now before it’s too late, and leave a message with the sergeant-at-arms for both your senators and representatives to oppose these two bills: Janet Miller, sergeant at arms,, 802-828-2228.

Jerry Cormier is a retired U.S. Treasury Revenue officer, former federal protective officer, and retired Vermont hunter (firearm) safety instructor. He writes from Barre. The opinions expressed by columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of the Brattleboro Reformer.