Vermont senators hear mixed legal and safety testimony on Burlington charter change to ban guns at alcohol-serving establishments

Montpelier — The Senate Committee on Government Operations heard extensive testimony April 3 on S.131, a proposal tied to a Burlington charter amendment that would bar possession of firearms at establishments licensed to serve alcohol on their premises.

Witnesses sharply disagreed about whether the state or a municipality may adopt such a rule, and about whether the draft charter language before the committee is legally sound. Legal witnesses said courts have recognized "sensitive places" where firearms may be restricted, but legislative counsel warned the amendment's current wording is vague and likely unconstitutional as drafted.

Senior litigation attorney Billy Clark of the Giffords Law Center told the committee that state and local governments can restrict firearms in places that serve alcohol and that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bruen (2022) does not categorically bar such regulation. "Guns and alcohol do not mix," Clark said, and he pointed the panel to federal and state decisions that have sustained restrictions on firearms in locations where people congregate and where alcohol is served.

Legislative counsel Eric Fitzpatrick said the legal question must be separated from the policy choice. He told senators that "conceptually, you can do it," but that the specific charter language the committee was reviewing is problematic: in his view the drafting is "almost certain [to be] a violation of the Second Amendment" and also "unconstitutionally vague and unclear or potentially overbroad." Fitzpatrick recommended narrowing the text and pointed to model language from other states that have faced and survived court challenges.

Chris Bradley, president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, urged caution on constitutional grounds and emphasized the Supreme Court's role as final arbiter. Bradley invoked the wording "shall not be infringed" to stress his view that the amendment risks unconstitutional limits on public carry and said courts across the country remain split on location-based firearm restrictions.

Gun-rights advocates from Gun Owners of Vermont also opposed the charter change. President Eric Davis argued the amendment would sweep too broadly and create an incoherent patchwork of local rules that would penalize law-abiding citizens and tourists who legally carry firearms. Davis and other witnesses said owners and licensees already can bar firearms from their premises as a property-rights matter, and that trespass or existing statutes can address specific incidents.

Burlington Interim Police Chief Sean Burke, testifying for the city, described repeated instances of firearm-related incidents tied to the downtown nightlife district and said the administration supports refining language that would bolster public safety at late-night establishments. "Alcohol and guns are not a great mix," Burke said, and he told the committee the city would provide statute-based data on firearm incidents in the downtown area upon request.

Michael Dunn, owner of T. Rugs Tavern in Burlington's Old North End, said he voted for the charter change and supports it as a business-owner measure to protect employees and patrons. Dunn said his staff do not search patrons and that clearer, enforceable law would help establishments avoid the friction that arises when patrons assert a legal right to carry on a premises that does not want firearms.

Committee members asked for clarifications: Legislative counsel agreed to provide the committee the statutory firearm definitions he referenced, and Burlington's police chief agreed to provide recent incident statistics, including how many incidents occurred inside licensed establishments. Several senators and witnesses noted the ballot margin in Burlington (reported at 86.6%) and asked staff to confirm precisely what language was presented to voters.

No formal committee action or vote was taken at the hearing. Senators said the committee may ask staff and witnesses to return with narrower draft language or additional data before considering any motion.

The committee recessed without moving a separate technical-corrections bill that had been scheduled for later in the agenda.

(Reporting note: Direct quotes in this story are taken from the committee transcript and attributed to listed witnesses.)