Sportsmen’s federation urges statewide firearms consistency, warns municipal gun bans may conflict with state law

Chris Bradley, representing the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, testified to the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on Feb. 13 that Vermont’s statutory limits on municipal firearms regulation have preserved consistent statewide rules for hunting, possession and related activity and that local ordinances expanding firearms bans risk clashing with state law and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Bradley, whose organization formed in 1875 and helped create the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, urged the committee to respect 24 V.S.A. §2295, which he described as restricting municipalities to regulating only the discharge of firearms and leaving possession, storage, hunting and ammunition to state law. "That has prevented what I would refer to as a patchwork of disparate laws as a Vermonter who is a firearms owner travels across the state," Bradley said.

He summarized recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings shaping Second Amendment doctrine, including District of Columbia v. Heller (recognizing an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense), McDonald v. City of Chicago (incorporating the right against the states), and Bruen (which focused analysis on the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation). Bradley also cited the Supreme Court's Rahimi decision on separating guns from violent offenders as narrowing the scope of permissible restrictions.

Bradley told the committee the federation supports some measures, including treating stolen firearms as grand larceny and developing storage solutions when a person is in crisis, but cautioned that recent municipal measures may run afoul of state law. He pointed to a Nov. 11 Burlington City Council resolution and accompanying draft ordinance that would bar firearms in bars and similar places as an example; he argued that 24 V.S.A. §2295 limits municipalities’ authority and that sign-only bans without screening or security amount to “illusory protection.”

Bradley also described operational problems created by a recent state storage law that allowed firearms seized in certain domestic-violence-related situations to be held by the Department of Public Safety, an FFL (federal firearms licensee), or a private third party. He recounted a case in which 19 firearms were seized after an accusation that was later dropped; the firearms were stored at an FFL, which later faced difficulty returning property because of incorrect court information and ultimately began selling unclaimed firearms under a statute. That sequence, Bradley said, generated civil litigation and raised questions about due-process protections and storage procedures.

On so-called "ghost guns" and the state requirement to serialize certain firearms, Bradley said many FFLs are reluctant or unable to perform serialization and engraving. He said some receivers or polymer components cannot be reliably serialized and that many small dealers lack manufacturing-grade engraving equipment; he warned that the state’s serialization requirement could be difficult to implement without available service providers.

Committee members asked Bradley clarifying questions about legislative priorities. Bradley said he supports a bill by Representative Anne Donahue to treat stolen firearms as grand larceny and reiterated support for secure storage options for people in crisis, while cautioning the committee about unintended consequences from laws staff or courts must implement.

Bradley concluded by asking the committee to retain state preemption for most firearms rules while acknowledging narrowly tailored "sensitive places" restrictions the Supreme Court has recognized (for example, courthouses and legislatures).