Senate committee weighs Burlington charter change to ban firearms on alcohol-licensed premises

BURLINGTON, Vt. — The Senate Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee heard competing testimony May 20 on S.131, a charter amendment from the city of Burlington that would prohibit possession of firearms on premises licensed to sell alcohol.

The measure, adopted by Burlington voters and now under review by the committee, drew arguments about public safety, municipal authority and constitutional risk. Witnesses included a Burlington bar owner who described on-site incidents involving knives and a recovered loaded firearm; legal advocates who warned the law could trigger litigation under recent Second Amendment precedents; and hunting- and gun-rights organizations that urged the Legislature to preserve statewide preemption of local firearms rules.

Mike Dunn, owner of T Rex Tavern in Burlington's Old North End, told the committee that he trains staff in de-escalation and considers firearms a special hazard in establishments that serve alcohol. "Guns and alcohol don't mix," Dunn said, summarizing his professional view. He recounted a nearly daylong hostage incident involving a man armed with a knife who fled police and entered his bar, and a separate closing-time episode when staff found a backpack containing a loaded gun and contacted the Burlington Police Department.

The legal landscape was described as unsettled by Rebecca Turner, chief of the Appellate Division at the Office of the Defender General. Turner said the U.S. Supreme Court has not squarely decided whether a law that categorically prohibits possession of firearms on alcohol-licensed premises would pass Second Amendment scrutiny and noted divergent appellate rulings nationwide. She warned the provision of S.131 setting a criminal penalty of up to 90 days' imprisonment alongside a civil fine of $200–$500 could create unusual prosecutorial discretion and constitutional exposure: "It sets up an either or or an and, meaning it establishes a criminal penalty ... and establishes it as a civil offense," Turner said, adding that the dual scheme could permit a person to face both civil and criminal sanctions for the same conduct.

Representing the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Chris Bradley urged caution on municipal action that conflicts with the state's preemption statutes. Bradley said Burlington's ballot item was portrayed in local coverage as a "guns in bars" measure but noted the charter language could cover restaurants, hotels and parking lots. He told the committee that the relevant preemption language — cited in testimony as "24 VSA 22 95" — has functioned for decades to prevent a patchwork of local firearms rules and argued the Legislature should consider amending state law rather than allow one city to create a new local regime: "If this bill is passed, we're breaking the back of the preemption statute," Bradley said.

Eric Davis, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, framed the issue as one of individual self-defense and opposed location-based restrictions. "Your life does not become any less valuable because you have gone from outside to inside," Davis said, urging the committee to address dangerous behavior — for example, intoxication plus misuse of a firearm — rather than ban possession at particular places.

Billy Clark, litigation attorney for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told the panel that both public-safety data and federal precedent support bans on firearms in places that serve alcohol. Clark said the Second Circuit's recent decision addressing New York's similar restrictions (discussed in testimony as the Antonyuk/Antoniuk line of decisions) supports municipal authority to restrict firearms in crowded or alcohol-serving places and noted the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review that appellate decision: "We are not in a land of uncertainty here," Clark said, adding that the Second Circuit ruling is binding in federal court in this region.

Committee members pressed witnesses on statutory specifics and enforcement mechanics, including whether the proposed charter requires signage, how the Burlington Police Department would prioritize calls under its threat-assessment system, and whether the Burlington ballot measure's language clearly informed voters about the locations it would affect. Chris Bradley supplied turnout figures the committee discussed: Burlington had about 28,952 registered voters, roughly 33% cast ballots in the March city referendum, and 8,335 voters supported the charter measure — about 86.7% of those who voted, a figure Bradley said represents roughly 1.64% of Vermont's adult voters.

No formal committee action was taken at the hearing. Committee leadership asked members to "marinate" on the testimony and indicated further consideration and consultation — including follow-up with legislative counsel — before any next steps.

The debate reflects two central tensions: whether municipal public-safety aims justify location-based restrictions on firearms, and whether adopting a local standard will prompt immediate litigation or require a legislative change to state preemption law. The committee's next steps were not scheduled at the close of the session.