MONTPELIER — A proposed change to Burlington’s local laws that would ban guns from bars and other venues that serve alcohol is making headway in Montpelier, where the change needs a signoff from state lawmakers. But a key Senate committee has reduced the scope of the proposal over concerns that, in its original form, it could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. 

It’s the second time in a decade that Burlington voters have asked legislators to approve the local gun control measure. This year’s effort was prompted by a fatal shooting last summer outside a bar and nightclub on Church Street, the city’s major shopping thoroughfare, that police said was preceded by a fight inside the venue. 

The Senate Government Operations Committee on Friday approved the change to the city’s charter, which is bill S.131, after four committee hearings in recent weeks. The panel voted 3-2 in favor of advancing the proposal, with its two Republican members voting no and its two Democrats and one Progressive/Democrat voting in favor. 

Burlington’s proposal is the only gun control measure that has made progress in the Statehouse so far this session. The measure’s lead supporter, Burlington resident and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, has called it a “common sense” change to keep bar patrons and staff safe from violence.

“I don’t think there’s anybody out there who would argue that guns and alcohol should be together,” said Baruth, who has long advocated for stricter gun laws in the state, in an interview. “The idea that people would argue, ‘well, I’m in a bar. I’ve only had a couple of drinks. I should have lethal force on me,’ that’s just a silly argument.” 

The full Senate still needs to approve the charter change, after which it would head to the House for further consideration and, after that, to Republican Gov. Phil Scott. 

As passed by Burlington voters, the proposal stated people may not “carry or possess” a gun “in any building or on any real property or parking area under the ownership or control of an establishment licensed to serve alcohol on its premises” in the city.

But parts of that language drew concern from the Legislature’s lawyers, who draft and review all bills. One of those attorneys, Erik FitzPatrick, told the Senate committee at a hearing this month he was “almost certain” that, if the language was enacted as passed by city voters, a court would find it in violation of the Second Amendment. 

The issue, according to FitzPatrick, was not the underlying goal of banning guns from places where alcohol is served. He pointed to how other states — 15, according to the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety — have put some limits on firearms in bars already. He also cited a federal appeals court decision last fall that upheld a New York State law banning guns from bars and certain other types of locations. 

Rather, he said, the issue was that Burlington’s original proposal applied to more types of locations — including parking lots and parts of a building where drinks wouldn’t be served — than court precedent on gun control legislation would, in his view, allow. 

The city’s language is “vague, and constitutionally overbroad, because it sweeps in a lot of places that there’s really no basis to prohibit firearms,” FitzPatrick told the senators.

READ MORE

by Auditi Guha
March 4, 2025, 8:19 pmMarch 5, 2025, 9:18 am

Committee members agreed, ultimately reworking Burlington’s language in the version they approved Friday to state that people may not have a gun “in any premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages,” nixing the words “parking area” and “any real property.” 

Burlington Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak said in an interview the city government proposed broad language on purpose, and in fact, she’d support restricting guns in even more locations. But she said she understood why senators narrowed the legislation.

“Compromise is the name of the game in the legislative process,” Mulvaney-Stanak, herself a former House member, said, adding, “we need this tool to come online.”

The proposal Burlington voters approved exempted law enforcement and military personnel who were acting in their official duties, as well as certain government employees and venue operators themselves, from the ban on carrying guns. 

Senators kept those exemptions but also added in others, specifically carving out the patios some venues create by cordoning off parts of a sidewalk. Legislative attorneys told the committee at a hearing Tuesday that this exemption would make it clear lawmakers were taking a narrow approach to banning guns from city venues.

Mulvaney-Stanak, speaking to the committee during the same hearing, appeared to push back slightly on the exemption, though, saying people might not realize there was such a distinction between outdoor and indoor seating areas. But she reiterated that the city was open to lawmakers’ changes so that the proposal could move forward. 

Senators also removed a provision from the measure as approved by voters that would allow police to seize a gun that someone illegally brought into a bar. They kept in proposed civil or criminal penalties for violating the measure, which include fines and, in the latter case, potential prison time.

Even with those changes, the proposal drew opposition from the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, a vocal advocate for gun owners’ rights, ahead of Friday’s vote. 

Chris Bradley, the federation’s president and executive director, told the Senate panel Thursday that the constitutional issues raised by FitzPatrick warranted greater scrutiny, urging lawmakers to hit the brakes on the charter change and instead see the proposal as an impetus to study possible changes to other, statewide gun laws that are already on the books. 

He said he thought the proposal should, at least, include a requirement for venues to post signs stating patrons can’t carry in guns, because without that, the measure would “only serve to entrap innocent Vermonters and tourists who are unaware of city lines.” 

“Many Vermonters choose to regularly carry firearms, or otherwise have them nearby,” Bradley continued. “What a law such as this does is discriminate. It discriminates against honest and law-abiding citizens who choose to carry for self defense — people who we should not have any concerns whatsoever, because they obey the law.” 

The proposal also prompted the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association to put out an online call to action earlier this month urging its members to oppose it — though that was before lawmakers revised the measure’s language.

Notably, it’s not clear whether the proposal has support from the governor. Amanda Wheeler, Scott’s press secretary, said in an email last week the governor’s office had numerous “questions that still need to be answered” about the proposal, including how it would be enforced. She wouldn’t say whether the governor would sign off on it.

Baruth, the pro tem, has said it would be up to the Burlington Police Department — which bar owners could call if someone brought in a gun unlawfully under the proposed ban — to be the ultimate enforcers. The city’s interim police chief, Shawn Burke, told senators during a hearing earlier this month he supported the proposal, calling it an important safety measure.

“Anytime that we’re responding to an incident, less guns are better,” Burke said. 

The proposal will be up for consideration for the full Senate on Wednesday, said Sen. Brian Collamore, R-Rutland, the committee’s chair, after Friday’s vote.