Senate Committee Advances Burlington Charter Amendment Banning Firearms on Premises That Serve Alcohol

A Senate committee advanced a charter amendment aimed at banning the knowing possession of firearms on premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages in the city of Burlington, sending the measure to the full Senate by a 3-2 committee vote.

The amendment, presented as S.131, would add a new section to the City of Burlington charter prohibiting a person from knowingly possessing a firearm on premises licensed to serve alcohol, with specific exceptions for certain license types, government officers acting in the scope of their duties and other limited circumstances. The proposal would allow either criminal penalties — a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 90 days — or civil penalties between $200 and $500 for violations, language that the counsel explained is being placed in state law rather than an ordinance.

The committee discussion focused on how the ban would interact with Vermont license categories and temporary permits. Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson walked the committee through the operative language, saying the measure “supersedes 24 V.S.A. sections 2291(8) and 2295” to authorize the city to regulate possession and carrying of firearms under the proposed charter section and reading the penalty range into the record: “Any violation may be considered a criminal offense, which shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days.”

Senator Tanya Vyhovsky, of the Chittenden Central District, described the amendment’s origins and said Burlington voters have repeatedly supported this restriction: the measure first appeared on a Burlington ballot in 2014 and passed again in 2025. “In 2014, 5,194 voted yes to this prohibition and 2,437 voted no. In 2025, 8,335 voted yes and 1,284 voted no,” Vyhovsky told the committee, arguing the language had been tailored to reflect recent court precedent so it would withstand legal challenge.

Vyhovsky cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision as the standard the committee considered when reviewing the language and said the committee worked to avoid constitutional vulnerability while respecting municipal democracy. “This is an exercise in democracy,” she said, adding that “there is no amount of alcohol that doesn't impact our judgment,” and noting the public-safety rationale behind restricting firearms where alcohol is served.

Committee members pressed staff on the bill’s exceptions. Counsel and committee members discussed how the ban would apply to first- and third-class licenses (on-premises service such as restaurants and bars), second-class licenses (retail sales for off-premises consumption), and a range of temporary permits. The text explicitly exempts certain venues and permit types — including second-class licensed premises (retail off-premises sales), sidewalks and public highways that pass through an outside-consumption area, some limited-event permits, special-event permits and promotional railroad tasting permits for dining cars — while retaining prohibitions for sampling-event permits such as large wine or brew festivals.

Members also raised operational questions about trains and boats that operate from Burlington. Counsel noted that many such operators already have company policies about firearm storage on board, but that first- and third-class licenses issued to boats and trains would be captured by the charter language unless an exception is added.

Several committee members asked whether exemptions should extend to private security and others authorized by the Secretary of State. Senator Vyhovsky said the committee had heard from the interim Burlington police chief, who advised against creating a broad exception for private security and similar categories. “In an instance where there’s alcohol and heightened people, less guns is always better,” she reported the chief said.

The committee did not adopt new amendments during the meeting. Members directed staff to consult with firearms counsel Eric Fitzpatrick for technical questions about the knowing-possession standard and to seek additional testimony; the chair indicated further testimony would be scheduled. The committee advanced the charter change by voice vote recorded as 3-2-0 and sent it to the full Senate for consideration.

Background details clarified during the session include that the amendment would be placed in state statute as a city-specific charter change rather than a municipal ordinance, a drafting choice counsel said permits both criminal and civil penalties in the same provision. The Division of Liquor Control's permit categories and the specific boundaries of outside-consumption areas were a recurring focus for members seeking to understand how the ban would apply in practice.

What happens next: committee staff will follow up with firearms counsel and the Division of Liquor Control for technical clarifications and schedule additional testimony; the bill will be considered by the full Senate following the committee’s procedural vote.