Witness tells Government Operations committee Burlington ballot language on firearms is vague; committee will review

Chris Bradley, president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, told the Vermont State Senate Government Operations Committee on April 17 that the Burlington charter amendment often described as a “no guns in bars” ballot item is constitutionally vague, conflicts with existing state law and could have broader effects than voters expected.

Bradley told the committee, “Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city, or incorporated village by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment shall directly regulate hunting, fishing, trapping, or possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing, or registration of . . . firearms,” and argued that Burlington’s November 2024 resolution and ballot wording did not comply with that statute. He said the city’s approach and the later draft amendment “clearly did not cut it” with constitutional concerns and that the language has been returned to the legislature for clarification.

The testimony focused on several legal and practical questions that Bradley said remain unresolved: whether the amendment is exempting itself from several state statutes he cited in his testimony (identified in the transcript as ‘‘24 VSA 22 95,’’ ‘‘24 VSA 22 91’’ and ‘‘24 VSA 19 71’’); whether existing state trespass law can already address proprietors who wish to bar firearms from private premises (referenced as ‘‘13 BSA 3705’’ in the transcript); and how the amendment would apply to hotel property and parking lots if the statutory definition of “premises” includes land and buildings.

Bradley pointed to numbers he said he had compiled about liquor licenses in Burlington to illustrate the scope: he cited “about 413 licenses” statewide and told the committee that Burlington had “123 first class licenses” and “92 third class” licenses, saying those figures indicate more than 200 establishments in the city could be affected. He warned the committee that, as written, the amendment could reach hotel grounds and parking lots, and could entrain otherwise law-abiding travelers who were not aware of local rules.

Committee members asked clarifying questions during the exchange. Senator Hart asked whether Bradley had seen updated language for the amendment; Bradley said he had received an updated draft late and had not had time to fully review it. A committee member noted Burlington’s mayor had argued other states have similar laws; Bradley said those laws contain many nuances — for example, exemptions for concealed-carry license holders or distinctions between bar and restaurant areas — that are not reflected in the Burlington language before the legislature.

Committee chair (first reference in the transcript as committee chair) thanked Bradley for the testimony and said the committee would “probably take some time tomorrow to carefully consider your testimony, and we’ll see where it goes.” No formal action or vote on the amendment was taken at the April 17 hearing.

Bradley recommended that any change to statewide restrictions be considered through a clean statutory amendment to the cited state law rather than by effectively ratifying an unclear local charter change. He also expressed support for measures that address behavior (for example, intoxication while armed) and for clearer notice requirements such as signage; he said he supported removing a civil-asset-forfeiture provision that had earlier been in the ballot language.

The committee record shows the item is still under consideration and that Bradley said he would submit his documentation to the committee staff for their review. The committee signaled it would revisit the amendment language and related statutory questions at a future meeting.