Legislative counsel outlines Burlington charter amendment banning firearms at liquor-licensed premises

Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson on Friday reviewed a draft charter amendment that would add a new section (§5-10) to the Burlington City Charter prohibiting the possession of firearms on premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages and setting criminal and civil penalties.

Anderson told the committee the proposal is “state law that is affecting just one municipality,” saying the provision is not an ordinance-delegation to the city but a special statute for Burlington. He said the draft “adds a new section 5 10 to the Burlington City Charter” and that “this is statute. It only affects the city of Burlington, but it is still statute.”

The proposal would expressly carve out two provisions of what Anderson and others referred to as the Sportsman’s Bill of Rights, creating an exception to the state preemption that otherwise bars municipalities from adopting gun-possession restrictions. Under the draft, possession of a firearm on any premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages would be prohibited within Burlington; the language, as discussed, would reach premises that hold first- or third-class service licenses while excluding retail outlets that sell sealed containers for off-premises consumption.

The draft includes several specific exemptions. It would not apply to federal or state law enforcement officers or to members of the armed forces acting within the scope of their duties. Anderson noted a separate exemption for holders of the license for the premises, but he cautioned that many license holders are corporations (for example, LLCs) and “corporations are not capable of possessing a firearm,” so the exemption likely would cover individual owners or joint owners rather than corporate entities.

The bill text, as reviewed, also treats outdoor licensed areas differently from interior service areas. Anderson explained that the Division of Liquor Control typically defines an “outside area” for a license by map or markers such as ropes; those outside permits may allow service in adjacent public ways or sidewalks when local authorities have approved use of a street or pedestrian area.

On penalties, the draft would allow both criminal and civil sanctions. Anderson summarized the penalty structure: a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 90 days, and a separate civil penalty ranging from $200 to $500. He said both penalties “may be overlapping or they may be individual,” and that the draft permits the municipality to enforce the civil penalty in the same category as civil ordinance enforcement for purposes of processing and collection. He noted that existing municipal civil-penalty processes typically involve the city attorney bringing an action and that the city would receive any civil penalties collected.

Committee members asked how enforcement would operate and who would bring charges. Anderson said enforcement could be pursued by the city attorney, a state’s attorney, or, in some circumstances, the attorney general; he described enforcement decisions as dependent on which prosecuting authority elected to bring the case. The committee also discussed whether describing the civil penalty as a “civil ordinance violation” might cause confusion when the provision is a state statute rather than a delegated city ordinance; Anderson said the word “ordinance” could be struck for clarity without changing enforcement.

Members questioned how the draft would apply to special circumstances such as licensed special-event permits, dining cars on railroads, and large outdoor festivals. Anderson said the draft includes carve-outs for limited-duration permits (special-event permits, special-event service permits and funded-event permits) and that the applicability to dining cars or Amtrak-style service depends on the specific license type in place. He also noted that federal requirements for transporting firearms by rail remain relevant for certain passenger situations.

No formal committee vote or final action on the draft occurred during the meeting. Several members indicated they may consult with other committees or offices, including defense and judiciary staff and the city attorney, before any change is proposed for final consideration.

The discussion centers on a proposed, city-specific statute that would create a narrow exception to statewide preemption and impose both criminal and civil penalties for firearm possession on licensed premises inside Burlington. Committee members pressed for clarifications on exemptions, enforcement authority, and the interplay between charter language and municipal enforcement procedures.