Duck Hunting Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs Fighting Fish

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

Link to NRA.org
Your NRA State Association

Home

Federation Position on Town Essex Firearm Discharge Ordinance Review Process

On the evening of October 20, the Selectboard for the Town of Essex held a public hearing to address calls for amending the existing firearm discharge ordinance. Representatives of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs were in attendance at the meeting.

The Federation holds the following:

The unintentional shooting death of Saint Michael's College Emeritus Professor John Reiss on Tuesday, Sept. 23rd, was a truly tragic event.

The Town of Essex would best be served in reviewing its existing firearm discharge ordinance by a deliberate process that works in compliance with existing state laws. (See below)

In any review of its existing discharge ordinance the Town of Essex should seek the services of Vermont Fish & Wildlife personnel. The Town of Williston did just this in its recent firearm discharge ordinance review.

Vermont is a Dillion Rule state, meaning that municipalities only have only those powers granted to it the legislature. The Vermont Legislature has enacted laws governing municipal powers firearm authority.

  1. Vermont municipal power to regulate firearm ownership is restricted by 24 VSA Section 2295
  2. Vermont municipal discharge-regulating power is set forth in 24 VSA Section 2291(8) and 10 VSA Section 5227, as amended by H.447, Act 173.

Vermont League of Cities & Towns Synopsis of H.447, Act 173 amendments to said statues is reproduced below and at:

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs holds that the reasonable concerns and rights of all parties can be satisfied by a deliberate review process. It should be a goal to maximize hunting/shooting wherever it can be safely conducted.

Vermont League of Cities & Towns Synopsis of H.447, Act 173

Shooting Ranges (H.447, Act 173)

VLCT Staff Contact: Karen Horn

H.447 establishes that only an owner of a property that abuts a shooting range may bring a nuisance action for civil damages against the range if the range is out of compliance with any noise use condition of any issued municipal or state land use permit. A shooting range now has a rebuttable presumption that it is not a nuisance if it was established prior to the acquisition of the property by the abutting property owner, and the frequency of the shooting or other alleged nuisance activity has not significantly increased since the abutting property owner acquired his or her property. That presumption may only be overcome by a showing that the activity has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the abutting property.

H.447 now requires that, prior to nighttime use of a shooting range by law enforcement agencies for training, the range shall notify abutting property owners if they’ve requested notice. A range shall also try to resolve issues through mediation if an abutting property owner requests it. Parties may thereafter submit the dispute to binding arbitration. The shooting range and property owner will share the cost of arbitration and mediation.

The bill also severely limits municipal authority by amending Section 8 of the enumerated powers of a municipality. A municipality may regulate the use or discharge of but not possession of firearms within the municipality or portions thereof, “provided that an ordinance adopted under this subdivision shall be consistent with section 2295 of this title and shall not prohibit, reduce or limit discharge at any existing sport shooting range, as that term is defined in section 5227 of Title 10.”

The relevant section of Title 10 defines a sport shooting range as “an area designed and operated for the use of archery, rifles, shotguns, pistols, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting.”

H.447 took effect upon passage, May 5, 2006. (Amends 10 V.S.A. § 5227 and 24 V.S.A. § 2291; adds 10 V.S.A. § 5227a.)

Updated: 21 October 2008