Vermont has embarked on a flagrant effort to trample on rights that the Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” But this time, the lawyerly legislators sworn to protect and defend the Constitution have been caught red-handed.
Histrionic progressive Vermont legislators have tried to institute a blatantly unconstitutional farce by couching their evil effort in a domestic violence bill: H 610. Purportedly trying to close the so-called “Charleston loophole,” this scam seeks to enact a 30-day waiting period for firearms purchases at the state level in place of the three-day federal “default proceed” process, which is current federal law. Further, if a potential gun-purchaser does not receive a background check clearance from the federal NCIS system after that 30 days, not only can’t they proceed to purchase a weapon — under H610, they have no right of appeal whatsoever.
Imagine a legislature imposing a 30-day “waiting period” on a woman obtaining an abortion — and if there is no approval, she must proceed to delivery. But the “right” to have an abortion is an “implied” right, whereas the right to bear arms could not be more explicit — it is the right that guarantees all others. The United States Supreme Court has specifically ruled that this right is “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions” (Heller v. DC) and that this right must be equally protected against state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment (McDonald v. Chicago).
It is bizarre that those who claim that Donald Trump is a tyrant seek to dispose of citizens’ core ability to oppose tyranny. One would think liberal awareness of the plights of the Uighur in China or Rohingya in Myanmar would lead them to clamor for more guns to secure our nation against dreaded tyrants, but instead they conspire to eradicate self-defense utterly.
The two sponsors of Vermont’s H 610 (both attorneys) sit on the House Committee on the Judiciary. Vermont’s Office of Legislative Council, and its attorney general, have both fully endorsed this draconian law, despite clear complaints that it grossly infringes on both the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause, as well as Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution. All four of these attorneys are paid with taxpayer funds to defend the Constitution: they are instead dismantling them.
But Vermont is (as so often) a special case. Recent emails were released that revealed something even more insulting and indefensible: H 610 is being drafted by a special-interest social worker named Sarah Robinson!
In these emails, Attorney Erik Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Counsel (which shamelessly calls itself “nonpartisan”) writes to Sarah Robinson and Maxine Grad, Committee Chair:
Attached is the revised draft of H.610, incorporating the recommended changes Sarah sent after the meeting last week.
Sarah, can you please read the blue highlighted changes closely to make sure I have integrated them correctly? I did a bit of editing and rewriting for clarity and organization, but did not intend to change anything substantively. Thanks for your help and let me know what you think.
Fitzpatrick’s fawning consideration is for Sara Robinson, deputy director of Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, a special-interest “nonprofit” that represents 15 consolidated nonprofit special interest groups.
An hour later, Maxine Grad responded: “Thanks. Erik once Sarah ok’s it, it can get sent out and posted. M”
And posted it was.
The purpose of the “default proceed” component of federal law is to guarantee that government does not unilaterally, and without legal cause (e.g., a felony conviction), deprive someone of acquiring a firearm — including a woman in fear for her life at the hands of an enraged domestic partner or other criminal. The purpose of H 610, written by a special-interest social worker and implemented by Constitution-negating legislators and attorneys, is to interpose exactly such an unconstitutional hurdle.
Vermonters have been grossly deceived by those sworn to protect them. The question is, will anything be done about it?
The fact is there is no constitutionally justifiable condition to ever prohibit anyone to “keep and bear arms”. Not even for criminals. “But it’s a good idea”…. yeah right… the very soul and foundation of Socialism/Communism is based on a “good idea” reason for trampling someones rights. That then is the basis for finding other “good ideas” to further restrict rights. Now here we are today just beginning to see the last of our rights disappear.