Surprised I hadn't seen this mentioned here, unless it's incorrect info.

Wife is saying that today there's a vote on some draconian proposal for a ban (not sure if sale, possession, transfer, etc) of all semiautos, magazines, etc.

I just called and spoke to the SGT At Arms and left a message for my representative with my phone number as well.

This is what she told me to write here, I guess it's from
an email that a friend sent her:

S55 is the UBC bill and it's being amended to include a ban on magazines and semiauto firearms. This is a full ban and includes rifles, shotguns,'and pistols. Call and do not stop. Call your reps at the Statehouse 802-828-2228. Leave a message for your rep.

For anyone checking in:

Call Governor Phil Scott at 802 828-3333 and tell whoever answers that you'd like it known that you oppose any new gun laws.
Email the governor at this link:  http://governor.vermont.gov/contact

Email your state reps, the governor, and Bernie, Peter Welch, and Leahy using these links from the NRA.

https://act.nraila.org/default.aspx?mapstate=vermont#idma
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1901



Things are moving quickly so please take the time to contact your Reps!


Check in on the Gun Owners of VT facebook page for updates:  Gun Owners of VT

Thank you! Wife and I have called and emailed up a storm!!

State and federal representatives, don't leave any of them out!

Everyone tell your friends to call and tell them to tell their friends about this!


This bill also would make leaving an unsecured firearm outside of your control punishable by up to a year in jail!

Thank you for posting the information.  I contacted all my reps and Governor Scott.

Any word on how it has progressed?

Thank you.  
As you probably know the Universal background check/ age restriction bill has already passed the state senate, but without the latest proposals like the 10 day waiting period, banning "assault weapons", safe storage, and magazine ban.  All the new stuff is being proposed by Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington (originally from California of course).  
I believe that stuff will be looked at this week in the house.

"These are elements that I want to get testimony on from experts to truly understand how effective they will be, what the downsides are for them. So, I haven't even decided on all those elements that I put in there," Rep. LaLonde said.
You know this new legislation will stop all the tragic bayonet attacks we've been having not only in VT, but nationwide.  Also, it seems like the antigun folks are getting as much time as they need to talk to committees, while one of the Gun Owners of VT reps said they were held to a strict 5 minutes with the microphone (this was mentioned at the UVM rally last week).  I wonder what kind of "experts" will testify?

Governor Phil Scott refuses to stand up against any proposal at this point.
Republican Gov. Phil Scott has embraced some new gun restrictions, but did not commit to limiting magazines when asked on Tuesday. "I'm not sure that that's something that's going to be considered this year, but we'll see what comes out of the Legislature," he said.

I'd be more than willing to testify, but would need to run it up my chain of command (federal LE).

I did include the following in some of my emails today, after mentioning where I've been in my 24 years in law enforcement. This is in reference to what I wrote about punishing law-abiding gun owners:

"I've encountered tens of thousands of criminals in my career, and I can't recall one of them whose actions seemed to be affected by the limits set by law."

From what was said at the UVM rally those running the show in the house are not at all interested in hearing from the pro gun crowd.

According to Eddie Cutler who's the president of Gun Owners of Vermont the bill is in the house judiciary committee and he'll be testifying about it tomorrow.

Another link to use to find and contact your legislators:  Find a Legislator

Just fired this off to all my reps

I’m a stay at home dad; the past eight years have been all about my kids, and part my job is keeping them safe. My oldest is in school full time (2nd grade), the youngest part time (pre-k), and I trust they are safe with the teachers and staff, even though I wish teachers/staff could be armed (that thought was cemented after Sandy Hook, yet I understand the choice not to.) However, instead of taking measures to increase school security or improving access to mental health services, some legislators have decided to pursue a decades long goal of gun control. In fact, they are even seeking to make normal citizens like me a criminal for owning modern rifles and handguns or selling a firearm to neighbors and friends. This session has been warped into a wish list for the gutting of the Second Amendment and article 16 of Vermont’s Constitution, and as a parent, that makes me sick to my stomach. The bills being pushed are similar to ones that are being pushed in state houses across the country. These people do not care about Vermont, or making our schools safer. Even our long standing history as one of the safest states in the U.S is irrelevant to those demanding gun control here. Individuals pushing these policies wish to break our independent spirit and change the culture that makes Vermont special.

Thank you for listening and I wish you well

Rep. Lalonde says he's going to remove the proposed "assault weapons" ban and the 10 day waiting period from his amendment.  He's still going for a ban on mags over 10 rounds and for the safe storage requirement.

The safe storage requirement has been dropped.  Make sure to contact your reps and tell them to oppose the mag ban (as well as universal background checks and the 21 age limit).

Update:  The bill made it through the house committee with a 6-5 vote.  The bill includes raising the age to 21, universal background checks, a ban on the possession of “bump stocks”, and a ban on mags over 10 rds (current mags are grandfathered).  Unlike the previous version it will become law immediately if it passes.

Both of my Senators said they will not vote for any gun control bills, my house members have not gotten back to me.

S55 is being voted on on Friday the 23rd,  call and email your reps ask for a public hearing on this bill.

Keep up the emails and the phone calls!!!

I really can't believe what's happening in VT.  I felt safe being able to freely protect myself and family while visiting VT and ME as a NH resident gun owner.  It is very sad to see what's happening to our human rights of self defense and preservation.  They're being taken away by people that are cowards caving under the public pressure of a tiny but loud miniscule minority of the population, career politicians trying to gain or ensure votes, and otherwise gun-grabbing globalist minded fascist overlords that want to ultimately disarm the entire population.  I grew up and lived in New York State for 39 years until the Safe Act was passed there.  A typical VT resident probably has no reason to be familiar with the letter of that law and would have to research it, but try to imagine those laws in your State.  Your proposed legislation is a considerable step in that direction.  I would be outraged as a VT resident.  So what happens to me as a NH resident with a "grandfathered" 10+ round magazine in my firearm while visiting VT?  Is that going to be allowed, or will I be a felon when I cross the border into VT?  Who is going to look at my magazine and try to determine when it was manufactured or purchased?

If it's like most places you won't be able to bring it. They will only grandfather magazines to VT residents.

The Californian that wrote the amendments didn't even know if VT residents could go to NH with mags for a shoot and then return without committing the crime of importing mags.  He said that wasn't the intent and he didn't think they'd prosecute that.  Someone suggested forensics testing to date mags.

He also told a rep who was concerned that he wouldn't be able to hand down his antique henry lever action to his grandson that he was correct in that assumption.  It's against the law to transfer any mag over 10 rounds to your family, even a lever gun if it's not a .22 caliber.

My favorite was in response to a question of "how would a college girl living in VT buy a gun to protect herself from a threatening ex boyfriend?"  His response?  She could go take a hunter's safety course and then she'd be able to buy one.

Shameful.

I'm beyond fucking pissed tonight, flip flopping Phill enabled this shitshow we saw today. Sad to say but the tranny the dims are running will be governor this fall

Ha, sure. If anyone believes that I hear Schumer has a bridge he is looking to sell.

I've been emailing - they know the majority don't want this but they do not care.

The time one is getting closer and closer - we either lose our rights or use the 2nd.

I've been emailing - they know the majority don't want this but they do not care.

The time one is getting closer and closer - we either lose our rights or use the 2nd.

I just realized the really insidious part of this bill.

It makes anyone born after it is signed an instant felon if they so much as pick up a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Regarding the mag ban---does it give a time period to get rid/sell/move them out of the state?

Its my understanding that currently owned mags would be grandfathered.

Let's go back, way back, to more general discussions of what happens when legislation like this is allowed to be proposed.

Call me extreme if you want, be offended as well, but I offer no apologies because this is reality.

I looked online and found a high-impact image I recall seeing in the past. Someone needs to print this out in high-resolution format, display on an easel, and confront the people who are supporting S.55 or any other legislation, in a public arena with cameras rolling. Simply ask the elected persons to explain to constituents why they feel the ideas of these folks from the past are good ideas. I bet silence will dominate. Insist on an explanation, because evidently the elected persons feel that the historical figures had sound ideas, so they should enthusiastically explain why they agree and find those historical persons to be so emulable.

Not sure who is still alive and has the memories, but perhaps some elderly Jewish or Cambodian persons could be present to hear this and offer their point of view on how their families were affected by the actions that happened in the past. Hold the politicians accountable for their proposed ideas in a public venue with full access for the press as well as civilians with recording devices. I am willing to be it would not end well for the elected officials.

Grandfathered but also prohibited from ever being transferred by any means to anyone if I’m reading correctly.

Which means if you suddenly die and your children have to take care of your estate they are automatically felons the moment they take possession of any grandfathered magazines you may have.

yep

They couldn't even be sold to someone in another state?  Again, won't they give a compliance time?  They did in NY,. . I believe they gave a year . . .

The way the amendment was written it became law immediately when signed.  They may have amended that again so “we” can all have a month or two to destroy “our” bumpstocks.  I’ll have to read the lasted version of what happened yesterday to see if that’s true and see what the new date would be (they were talking July 1st in another version).

Sorry, I should have specified transferred in state.

You can take/mail them out of state but if you live close to the border and want to do a FtF transfer in NH that falls through you can’t bring them back into the state without committing a crime.

What gets me is how do they know who "owns" the magazines?  If something happened to me a month from now, who is to say my wife or daughter didn't own the magazines or do I now own 75 AR magazines, wife owns 75, daughter 75....it makes no sense.

Say I go take a class at SIG I can't bring my mags back into the state?  They are my mags legally grandfathered in VT that are just returning home.  It is really a fucking stupid bill.

I get this is a overly liberal state.  These people need to be rooted out, they care more about the safety of addicts than its law abiding citizens. You'll see legal pot and safe shoot up zones for addicts, but the victims of domestic violence and those killed by a driver under the use of drugs, nope screw you, you get no safety. There is no other word than sad for the way things are going. And it isn't just here.

As a side note I have heard back from all the Rutland county senators and they are all solidly against the bill.

So, if S.55 passes when does it go into effect?  Just trying to get an AUG and mags into the state before anything too stupid happens...

I think the thing I hate more than the infringement of our rights is now little though was put into this bill.  It's so toothless and hollow.  How do we substantiate a mag is "pre-ban," how do they intend to enforce the law?

As of right now goes into effect as of signing, so you might want to get on that first thing in the am.

Only way they could tell if it is "pre ban" was if it has a date code on the mag and had a date after the bill was signed.  The magazine portion is so full of holes you could drive a Mack truck thru it, but that is what you get when a lawmaker has no idea what he is talking about.....fuck him

If you stick them into a trust then there should be no transfer between your estate and your family.

When they passed the SAFE act in NY, it was law immediately, BUT, they gave a year for compliance. . .

Just wanted to let it be know who the good senators are in Montpelier.  I have received email replies from both of my representatives, Senator Brock, and Senator Branagan, stating that they will vote no on S.55.  Nothing yet from the other representatives I emailed.

It's also worth noting that Sen Brock replied to me same-day on the weekend, and Sen Branagan was up early with a 5am time stamp on the email.  The outcome of S.55 will not be forgotten during the next election.

I heard back from James Harrison and Brian Collamore on No to S.55.

Everything will take effect upon passage except for the bump stock ban, which takes effect in October.

Based on the March 2nd Senate vote we need 2 senators to flip to the nay side when they vote on the house amendments.  Here's the vote results from the senate earlier this month:

17-13
Ashe of Chittenden District Yea
Ayer of Addison District Yea
Balint of Windham District Yea
Baruth of Chittenden District Yea
Benning of Caledonia District Nay
Branagan of Franklin District Nay
Bray of Addison District Yea
Brock of Franklin District Nay
Brooks of Washington District Yea
Campion of Bennington District Yea
Clarkson of Windsor District Yea
Collamore of Rutland District Nay
Cummings of Washington District Yea
Flory of Rutland District Nay
Ingram of Chittenden District Yea
Kitchel of Caledonia District Nay
Lyons of Chittenden District Yea
MacDonald of Orange District Yea
Mazza of Grand Isle District Nay
McCormack of Windsor District Yea
Nitka of Windsor District Nay
Pearson of Chittenden District Yea
Pollina of Washington District Yea
Rodgers of Essex-Orleans District Nay
Sears of Bennington District Nay
Sirotkin of Chittenden District Yea
Soucy of Rutland District Nay
Starr of Essex-Orleans District Nay
Westman of Lamoille District Nay
White of Windham District Yea

If your senator voted yea send them an email and tell them to oppose the bill.
This could delay the mag ban part of the bill for now.

Add Senators Pati Lewis and Anne Donahue of Washington county to the no on S.55 list.

Below is an excerpt of Donahue explaining what happend with the hearing and voting on S.55

The Vermont legislature has never, in the past, been appropriately compared to the ugly partisanship that occurs in Washington, D.C. How do I define “ugly partisanship”? It is when actions have nothing to do with honest or even passionate political disagreements over policy. It comes when a majority party deliberately uses its control over rules of procedure to block debate or squelch the voice of the minority.
That happened last week in Montpelier.
Our work on the House floor – the presentation of bills by committees so that we can understand what we are voting for, the debate when there are concerns, and the votes themselves – was declared as being merely a “show” by the Democratic minority assistant leader. The context was an unprecedented vote to authorize a policy committee to meet and work on bills at the same time that the floor is in session.
The significance is that members of a committee are forced to choose: participate in hearing witnesses, analyzing pros and cons of a bill, and taking part in the committee’s decision to recommend a bill to the full body versus participating in hearing the presentation of bills on the floor, listening to and participating in debate, and voting.
On an individual basis, members do sometimes make their personal choice to not be on the floor when addressing another priority matter. I have done it myself for brief periods when consensus bills are under review. At times near the end of the session, there are enough members rushing around getting final work done that there needs to be a quorum call on the House floor.
The outcome was directly along political party lines, which meant an 82-52 vote that placed minority members in that untenable position, in the interests of the majority to move those bills forward. It was raw political partisanship.
In explaining my “no” vote in a formal statement, I pointed out that our processes are intended to protect the voice of the minority. “That voice has been trampled on today, through an unconscionable and unprecedented vote by this body. The significance cannot be understated.”
The assistant majority leader then provided her explanation: “It has been said the committees do the work of the people; the floor is the show. Enough said.” It was a staggeringly arrogant acknowledgement that majority membership feels its presence on the House floor is unnecessary. Its members can control the outcome of every vote. There is no need to listen to other perspectives.
Although I am a member of the minority party, I would feel the exact same way if the roles were reversed. I believe the outcome was a sad day for Vermonters and their right to be represented in the people’s House.

Not sure if linking here is kosher, but there is a lot of organizing on reddit to stop this thing atm, coordination might help: https://www.reddit.com/r/VTGuns/comments/86xtan/s_55_master_thread/

This post has contact info for all "swing" senators: https://www.reddit.com/r/VTGuns/comments/86uvxu/s55_is_a_backdoor_semiauto_ban_we_need_to_stop_it/dw8li0m/  Not sure if it is worth contacting house folks, but Gov. Scott should have his phone blown up till S.55 and anything that looks like it is dead.

Why does Phil Scott's reply not mention magazine bans? Is he hiding that on purpose or will he not sign a mag restriction bill?

I'd bet money that the traitor will sign it. Maybe he will surprise us and get on the road to redemption but I highly doubt it.

I think your right. However if I can get more mad I will if he is lying about what he supports on top of being a traitor.

I haven't seen anything yet from Scott that says he'd definitely sign a mag ban, however he's made statements that make it sound like he would.  He's said that we don't need to ban certain types of guns, but he thinks it would be worth looking at a mag ban to see if that would be effective.  He's also said he didn't think a mag ban would make it to his desk this year, but "let's see what happens".
I believe if the bill with the mag ban included makes it to his desk then he'll sign it.  He doesn't have the sack to veto now that the antis have their hopes up.  He's as much responsible for this as the Californian who wrote much of it.

He says it's hard to face your friends and supporters when they feel you've betrayed them.  So far I haven't seen anything to indicate he's talked to anyone pro gun on this.  I wouldn't be surprised if he's had words with the anti gunners though.  They certainly are pushing a bill as restrictive as they can but they're not including anything Scott has said he's opposed to.

Thank you for posting the list of the "yay" voters.  I emailed all my reps and I will follow up again with Governor Scott.

I've emailed my reps and senators several times. I've called, more than once. I've even gone so far as to send them each an actual, handwritten letter. Doom on me.

according to Gun owners of Vermont Big rally at the State House tomorrow. Some reps will be there and a bunch of off duty police

Wish I could get loose from work for this. Co. has a two-week-notice policy for time off.

Y'all make enough noise for me, too! And post photos after, please.