Senate reviews Burlington charter amendment to ban firearms at establishments with first-class liquor licenses

Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson briefed the Senate Government Operations Committee on March 27 about S.131, a bill that would approve a charter amendment adopted at the City of Burlington’s annual meeting to ban firearms at establishments with first‑class liquor licenses.

Anderson summarized the charter language and how it interacts with state law. "This particular charter amendment adds a new section ... a ban on firearms in any establishment with a first class liquor license," he told the committee. The amendment states that within the city no person may "carry or possess a firearm" in any building, real property, or parking area that is under the ownership or control of an establishment licensed to serve alcohol on the premises.

Why it matters: the change delegates local regulatory authority through a charter amendment but directly conflicts on its face with two provisions cited by counsel — Title 24 sections referenced by Anderson that restrict municipalities from adopting ordinances that limit firearm possession. Anderson flagged multiple potential legal issues for the committee, including ambiguous terms (for example, whether property owners who are not license holders are covered) and the scope of exceptions.

Key provisions and concerns

- Scope and cross‑references: Anderson said the charter language expressly attempts to "supersede 2 sections in title 24, section 22 91 subdivision 8, and section 22 95," statutes he described as part of the state’s current prohibitions on municipal firearm regulations. The charter cross‑references "13 BSA section 4,016 subdivision a 3" for the definition of "firearm." (These statutory citations were read as provided during testimony and will require precise statutory mapping by counsel.)

- Exceptions: The charter draft contains exceptions for federal, state, and local law enforcement acting within official duties; members of the armed forces acting within duties; "any government officer, agent, or employee authorized to carry a weapon and acting within the scope of that officer's duties;" and the owner or operator of a licensed establishment so long as that person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. Committee members asked whether private security or a property owner who is not the licensee would fall inside these exceptions.

- Penalties and civil forfeiture: The charter sets both criminal (up to $1,000 fine or 90 days imprisonment) and civil penalties ($200–$500) for violations and includes civil‑asset forfeiture provisions allowing law enforcement to seize weapons on probable cause. Anderson noted the civil forfeiture timing could raise legal questions because seizure is authorized upon probable cause rather than conviction; an appeal procedure to the Civil Division of Superior Court is included and the charter places the burden of proof on the city in such appeals.

Next steps and committee requests

Anderson told the committee the judiciary/Second Amendment analysis will be provided by legislative counsel Eric Fitzpatrick, who will discuss constitutional parameters and prior case law. The committee asked Anderson to provide the certified charter package and vote tallies the city submitted to the Secretary of State, and counsel said he will circulate those materials.

Ending note

Committee members flagged several drafting ambiguities — for example, whether a landlord or building owner would be covered, how parking lots are treated, and who qualifies under exceptions such as private security — and the panel scheduled further legal analysis before advancing any approval vote.