I don't think that's very uncommon at the state level. In WV our biggest hindrance to passing pro-2A legislation is the Republican chair of a judiciary committee. The most vocal anti-gun mayor in the state is a Republican. We've had D's cosponsor all of the great legislation we've passed, and we've had R's vote against all of it.Originally Posted by K.Hungus
I was at the range yesterday with a friend who lives in Vermont. He was told flat out by a Vermont State Trooper that the police have NO Intention of enforcing any of these new firearms related laws and the Department has plainly communicated this to the Legislature.
My friend said the magazine ban is sales related only and that it will be legal to drive across the river into New Hampshire and buy what ever magazine you want and bring it home.
I applaud the trooper's position but would hesitate to hang my hat on his assurances. Mr. Murphy has a way of showing up uninvited.
There's nothing civil about this war.
As my friend described it this decision not to enforce came from the upper levels of the state police. However we all know how the wind direction can change with a few key appointments.
The version of the bill that I read bans possession, not just sale or purchase. Perhaps there was an amendment. (?)
Has anyone a link to the final version of this bill?
This is the text as passed by both house and senate according to legislature.vermont.gov:
https://legislature.vermont.gov/asse...20Official.pdf
It bans possession, manufacture, purchase, import, transfer, receiving, and sale of rifle mags with >10 round capacity so it definitely is not something you can legally get around by buying them in NH.
There is an LEO exemption, however the wording is confusing: “(B) transferred to or possessed by a federal law enforcement officer or a law enforcement officer certified as a law enforcement officer by the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council pursuant to 20 V.S.A. § 2358, for legitimate law enforcement purposes, whether the officer is on or off duty”
As far as I can tell, there is only one definition of “legitimate law enforcement purpose” in the Vermont Statutes Annotated and that is found in the laws regarding automated license plate reader use. T 23 V.S.A 1607(a)(5) states: “Legitimate law enforcement purpose" applies to access to active or historical data, and means investigation, detection, analysis, or enforcement of a crime or of a commercial motor vehicle violation or a person's defense against a charge of a crime or commercial motor vehicle violation, or operation of AMBER alerts or missing or endangered person searches.”
Does that mean I can only possess 30 round ar mags if I’m investigating, detecting, analyzing or enforcing criminal or commercial motor vehicle violations?
——
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Last edited by WobblyPossum; 04-08-2018 at 10:53 AM.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
"Legitimate law enforcement purpose" is bad wording as there are better choices, but I think it's pretty easy to assume that it's equal to/intent is "within scope of duties."
So, me, with a firearms policy that is limited to certain weapons, I wouldn't be able to own a Beretta 18 round mag because it's not an authorized firearm for my job......therefore not for a "legitimate LE purpose", or within the scope of my duties as defined by my agency.
I wouldn't overthink it too much. Buy/own whatever is authorized by your agency, and I can't imagine you running into trouble.
Last edited by TGS; 04-08-2018 at 11:11 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEed-o8fVpM
I’m also ticked off that they wrote in a sunset provision to the clause that allows out of state residents to bring “large capacity ammunition devices” in temporarily for the purposes of shooting matches. What’s the point of that? Are the NH residents that want to shoot USPSA up here going to suddenly go on killing sprees in 2019 with the magazines they’re legal to have through 2018? That’s just petty.
–————————————————
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
That does make it sound like LEOs would technically only be allowed to have "large capacity" mags for their duty guns, and in theory would have to turn in/dispose of any that aren't for those guns. Unlikely that that would be enforced against cops, though; what cop wants to arrest another cop over a law they both object to? Of course, I'm always confused at the idea that LEOs should get an exemption from these laws; why do LEOs need access to things regular civilians aren't allowed to have? Presumably these laws are always written that way because the people writing them know that they'll draw a ton of fire from LE if they don't. Seems like everybody loses, though. My condolences to all Vermont residents.
Reply With Quote