RIP Vermont: update the restrictions passed the House

Goes in effect on October 1st, 2018.

I'd be shopping for CASES or USGI Mags and Glock mags if I was a resident.

Maybe buy 1000 mags to squirrel away.


Went into effect as soon as he signed it. We the people cannot "import" new magazines into the state, nor buy/sell/trade them amongst ourselves. FFL dealers have until 1 Oct. to sell of their existing inventory. They too, cannot import more into the state. At this point, most of the dealers are completely out of OEM STANDARD capacity magazines that are now "illegal".

This was the fastest I've ever seen a bill get blasted through the process and made into law. It was unbelievable...
The AG and most of the police forces have publicly said that the mag law us unenforceable.


I wonder how long before they sunset the grandfather clause...
 
The AG and most of the police forces have publicly said that the mag law is unenforceable.
... and you should be thankful for that. At least for a long time to come (i.e., until new incompatible guns are developed), no one will be able to discern a pre-Vermont Ban magazine from a post-Vermont ban magazine. It's not like pre-Federal AWB vs. post-Federal AWB like we Ma**h***s suffer with. As rotten as Vermonters have it now, we Ma**h***s still have it much, much worse. [thinking]
 
"pre VT ban magazine" is only relevant to VT residents, right?

e.g., if I take my G17 with its regular magazine into VT, it's an "import", because I don't live there...

Do I understand that correctly?
 
"pre VT ban magazine" is only relevant to VT residents, right?

e.g., if I take my G17 with its regular magazine into VT, it's an "import", because I don't live there...

Do I understand that correctly?


If the police are refusing to enforce it, then I don't think it really matters. Meanwhile, I picked up 3 standard capacity G19 mags for $15/mag at a gun show down here in PA.
 
... and you should be thankful for that. At least for a long time to come (i.e., until new incompatible guns are developed), no one will be able to discern a pre-Vermont Ban magazine from a post-Vermont ban magazine. It's not like pre-Federal AWB vs. post-Federal AWB like we Ma**h***s suffer with. As rotten as Vermonters have it now, we Ma**h***s still have it much, much worse. [thinking]

Not sure about that, while there are plenty of options for them that would be undetectable or nearly so it is still illegal. They have no ability to buy/import "Pre bans" like we do here, and the courts having not seen a case for illegal mag possession have not decided how that case might go. For all we know it will be a standard of "The State makes the claim that your mags are illegal, you have to prove otherwise".
 
If the police are refusing to enforce it, then I don't think it really matters. Meanwhile, I picked up 3 standard capacity G19 mags for $15/mag at a gun show down here in PA.

Right, but if you get jacked up for some other stupid thing (victim in an auto accident?) the mere possession of a regular magazine is de-facto proof of a violation for a non VT resident, right?
 
Right, but if you get jacked up for some other stupid thing (victim in an auto accident?) the mere possession of a regular magazine is de-facto proof of a violation for a non VT resident, right?


How so? You might have borrowed it from a VT resident. It might have been in the state the whole time, never having left it. It's up to the state to prove that that magazine is illegal.
 
How so? You might have borrowed it from a VT resident. It might have been in the state the whole time, never having left it. It's up to the state to prove that that magazine is illegal.

it's the same bullshit we deal here in MA, once cops see hi caps, you will be charged for every single one of them. That's how it's done in MA. Good luck buying justice to prove them wrong.
 
How so? You might have borrowed it from a VT resident. It might have been in the state the whole time, never having left it. It's up to the state to prove that that magazine is illegal.


No way to know who has the burden of proof until this lands in a court, and even if that SHOULD be the way it goes, we all know how judges hand down nonsense "Because guns".
 
it's the same bullshit we deal here in MA, once cops see hi caps, you will be charged for every single one of them. That's how it's done in MA.

You might be surprised at how often that simply does not happen in MA... seeing "LCAFD w/o a license" (which is an easy to convict charge on actual bad guys) or seeing an AWB charge appear is uncommonly rare.

-Mike
 
No way to know who has the burden of proof until this lands in a court, and even if that SHOULD be the way it goes, we all know how judges hand down nonsense "Because guns".

By default the state always usually has the burden of proof WRT a criminal offense. It's a basic tenet of criminal law in most places.

-Mike
 
If you are trying to follow the law:
1) For the next 12 months it doesn't really matter as to support in-state competitions, they added a provision to allow magazines that exceed the restrictions to be carried into the state THEN removed from the state.
2) After the 12 months has expired, the test is simple. Does the pistol Mag hold 15 round or less? You are good to go. Does it hold 16 rounds or more? Then NO GO. Since you are not in state, there is no grandfather clause. Even if the mag is 60 years old, it cannot be imported into the state even temporarily.

What if you own property where you leave the mag's prior to the deadline?
 
How so? You might have borrowed it from a VT resident. It might have been in the state the whole time, never having left it. It's up to the state to prove that that magazine is illegal.

.... I thought I read something about possession and being a resident, i.e., only residents can have "pre-ban" magazines.

it's the same bullshit we deal here in MA, once cops see hi caps, you will be charged for every single one of them. That's how it's done in MA. Good luck buying justice to prove them wrong.

But in MA you don't have to prove (as if you should ever have to prove) that it was in state. In MA, *any* pre-'94 magazine is fine, regardless of when it got here.
 
Maybe on paper, but with the way things run in the courts "Because guns" anything could happen.

Yeah, if you pick a bench trial, sure, they can do that. If you face a jury, you still get to force the state to prove that you broke the law, and your
attorney is free to shoot holes in that argument.

-Mike
 
I’ve posted this before but i’ll say it again.

I sat on a grand jury recently in NH of all places and all cases involving GUNZ the defendant got jacked. On all charges. Yeah go ahead and say well that does not mean guilt just cause to move foward. But a smart man can read the tea leaves
 
You might be surprised at how often that simply does not happen in MA... seeing "LCAFD w/o a license" (which is an easy to convict charge on actual bad guys) or seeing an AWB charge appear is uncommonly rare.

-Mike
Each and every day I support this line of thought more and more. Most cops wouldn’t have a clue which magazines are preban and which aren’t and they often don’t care as long as you have an LTC.

It’s anecdotal for sure, but I have a pretty close friend who’s a cop. I told him one of the reasons I bought a Glock was because I could get some 15 round magazines. He was confused because he knew I had an LTC, no restrictions, class A etc. He thought that allowed me to own the same for MPs, SRs, and whatever pistol I wanted.
 
It’s anecdotal for sure, but I have a pretty close friend who’s a cop. I told him one of the reasons I bought a Glock was because I could get some 15 round magazines. He was confused because he knew I had an LTC, no restrictions, class A etc. He thought that allowed me to own the same for MPs, SRs, and whatever pistol I wanted.

Now imagine for a moment a cop who is not your friend who perhaps dislikes the idea of the general public owning modern firearms. Maybe even approves of the efforts put forth by the current AG. I wonder what that officer thinks?
 
Now imagine for a moment a cop who is not your friend who perhaps dislikes the idea of the general public owning modern firearms. Maybe even approves of the efforts put forth by the current AG. I wonder what that officer thinks?
Part of what I believe is that most cops aren’t even thinking about capacity, or assume that you’re licensed and good to go. I don’t doubt that there are some out there who would railroad you for ANY 15 round magazine, but I believe they are the minority.

As an aside I saw this same guy over the weekend and told him I was definitely getting a taser. He said he didn’t think normal people should have the kind with barbs, like real tasers, but the contact kind of stun guns should be fine.

I let him know without any doubt I was buying a real one. The dinner that followed was a little tense.
 

Yes, and thats an example of when the system goes full retard, but its not entirely clear to me where things went off the
rails there, although the prosecutor must be a prick to be levying "animal cruelty" bit here. Not a lot to go on in the
article, either. (like where was the dog shot, did he actually shoot it while it was still in his yard?)

I was speaking more to the specific evidentiary aspect of "whether a device is illegal or not".... still rather take a chance with a jury (and if I can afford it) an expert witness) than some judge just going HURR! GUNS ARE BAD! DURR! GUILTY!!!!

-Mike
 
Well if you find the time to explore the available news articles you might find your HURR DURR judge theory go into a tailspin very quickly. I'd say pm me for additional details but I've not found you too receptive to altenate narratives.
 
Don't analyze a law based on how you think that it will be enforced... judge every law as if your greatest enemy will use it against you in whatever way he can imagine.

Following that advice would essentially mean not owning guns at all.

There’s a happy medium between following the law in good faith and complete pant-shitting.
 
Don't analyze a law based on how you think that it will be enforced... judge every law as if your greatest enemy will use it against you in whatever way he can imagine.

Following that advice would essentially mean not owning guns at all.
There’s a happy medium between following the law in good faith and complete pant-shitting.

Well, here's the difference between how one reads bills when they are proposed, vs. how one lives after they are passed. One should anticipate the more far-out interpretations (but not ad absurdum) when reading a bill, then live with the law in a more "reasonable interpretation" universe. It is still the case - though it may cost unrecoverable thousands to get to "justice" - that ambiguities in the criminal law are read against the state. That's for values of "justice" that include "you're broke and your life is ruined, but your record is now basically clear... yay."
 
Back
Top Bottom