Vermont Republican Governor Signs Law Banning “Paramilitary Training”
Guess the Vermont legislature and governor forgot the state’s history with Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.
Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed S.3 into law, banning paramilitary camps.
Guess the Vermont legislature and governor forgot the state’s history with Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. More on that later.
Democrat state Sen. Phil Baruth introduced the legislature because authorities couldn’t do anything about a camp since it didn’t violate state laws. How dare they!
State laws? How about the Constitution? The 2nd Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From MyChamplainValley.com:
State Sen. Phil Baruth introduced the bill to prevent training camps such as Slate Ridge, run by Daniel Banyai.
Authorities say owner Banyai didn’t have the proper zoning permits to build the facility, and neighbors have complained about the noise of gunfire from the camp.
In February 2023, the Vermont Environmental Court ordered Banyai to take down the buildings involved with the training by June 23rd, or face the possibility of jail, and fines that could exceed $100,000.
In April 2021, Banyai described his property to The Associated Press as a firearms training facility that was safe, and didn’t pose any risk to the environment. The facility also teaches first aid and “anything to do with the outdoors and firearms.”
Here’s the thing. The bill does not match the description of Banyai’s facility. Law enforcement went hard on Banyai because neighbors described it as a menace.
The Environment Court, which deals with environmental law and “hearing appeals of Vermont municipal enforcement actions,” went after Banyai.
§ 4071. PARAMILITARY TRAINING PROHIBITED
(a) A person shall not:(1) teach, train, or demonstrate to any other person the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, or techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the teaching, training, or demonstrating is intended to be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder; or
(2) assemble with one or more other persons for the purpose of practicing or being taught, trained, or instructed in the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, or in techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the practicing, teaching, training, or instruction is intended to be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder.
(b) A person who violates this section shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $50,000.00, or both.
The law does not apply to “legitimate law enforcement purposes” or “Norwich University or any other educational institution where military service is taught.”
The legislature also said it does not apply to any activity “without knowledge of or intent to cause or further a civil disorder that is intended to teach or practice self-defense or self-defense techniques, including karate clubs, self-defense clinics, and similar lawful activity.”
It doesn’t ban anything related to “recreational use or possession of firearms.”
In other words, you can still do everything listed in the legislature if the people do not plan to use the techniques to cause or further disorder.
Excuse me. How do you know if someone is there to learn the techniques to cause or further civil disorder if they clearly don’t say it out loud?
How does Banyai’s facility cause a bill like S.3? Banyai claims Slate Ridge is a firearm training facility on 30 acres.
Ah, yes. Besides the state senator being frustrated because Banyai didn’t violate state laws, Banyai lacked permits. The government must go after him:
Authorities say owner Daniel Banyai built the facility without proper zoning permits. It has been at the center of various legal actions since September 2019.
In a scathing order issued Wednesday, the Vermont Environmental Court said that Banyai was in contempt of court for deliberately flouting a series of court orders issued since the legal case began. This time, he faces jail and fines that could exceed $100,000 if he fails to comply by June 23.
The fines are stacking up at a rate of $200 a day because Banyai has not followed a series of court orders calling for him to remove a number of buildings, including what is called a “school house;” and other structures, as well as shooting ranges that were constructed without the required town zoning permits, the court said.
“Respondent has demonstrated a willfulness, perhaps even an enthusiasm, for disregarding the Town’s Bylaws, this Court’s Orders, and the authority of the Judiciary,” the Environmental Court said in an order issued Wednesday by Judge Thomas Durkin.
As I said, people called the camp a menace. Others claimed people at the camps threatened and intimidated them. They stay anonymous because they fear for their safety.
You know, Vermont wouldn’t exist without Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys. They are literally the reason why the state isn’t part of New York. The state owes its existence to a militia group.
The Green Mountain Boys, a militia group, also had an impact in the Revolutionary War. We would have lost Fort Ticonderoga without them.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
or techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons
I don’t think you can get much broader than that. That pretty much covers … everything.
So boxing gyms and marital arts dojos are out too, I guess.
LOL, what a bunch of f-ing morons.
Really, there should be some civil remedies against government officials who promulgate such obviously unconstitutional bullshyte.
Don’t forget gun safety classes.
Heck, a driving school could qualify, if they interpret the law broadly enough.
More virtue signaling that will be challenged and defeated.
I thought “civil disorder” was the highest form of participation by the Left. It flies fully in the face of a well regulated militia necessary for a free state …. this gives the oppressors that run the state full power to crush any training for armed opposition. It all depends on who controls government and its goals. Such laws would have been embraced by state sponsored KKK in the South. What could go wrong?
You can be certain that “civil disorder” will be selectively applied.
Seems to me they are now in violation of Article 4, Section 4 for destroying the rights of the people and for destroying the informal militia. On top of other things.
Yup, according to US Code, all fighting age males not a member of the regular armed forces are, by definition, members of the irregular militia.
So, I can’t take my kid to the woods and teach them to hunt/shoot?
Also sounds like Boy Scout camps are verbotten now. Unless they are ‘Diversity Education Establishments’?
“Respondent has demonstrated a willfulness, perhaps even an enthusiasm, for disregarding the Town’s Bylaws, this Court’s Orders, and the authority of the Judiciary,”
“You will respect mah athoritah!”
Also:
https://media.tenor.com/images/f5de5f2197f98620591adbf4ff1f4b36/tenor.gif
Oh, Jesus.
Here’s the thing: 4071.a.1) and 2) appear to be things for which there is already a law – it’s called conspiracy. If you’re planning on, say, blowing up police stations, and you conspire to do so (exactly what the above is alleging), then you’re guilty of conspiracy to commit those crimes.
While I sympathize with the town about the guy breaking a bunch of zoning regulations, the need for this law is nonexistent. Except, of course, to give the gov’t a course of action against anyone they don’t like who plays with guns in the woods.
(Also wondering why they don’t just arrest this guy for these violations if he’s not paying the fines. If he is paying the fines then… well, I think they’re out of luck.)
Just call your camp “Antifa Training Camp” or “BLM Training Camp”. You’ll be in the clear; heck, you’ll probably get government funding.
Start raking-in those Soros-bucks!
Going over what the law said
“teach, train, or demonstrate to any other person the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, or techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the teaching, training, or demonstrating is intended to be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder; or”
Already illegal in every other state
“assemble with one or more other persons for the purpose of practicing or being taught, trained, or instructed in the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, or in techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the practicing, teaching, training, or instruction is intended to be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder.”
Again it literally is already illegal in every other state
” A person who violates this section shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $50,000.00, or both.”
That is a slap on the wrist compared to doing exactly the same thing in 49 other states.
While it sounds bad reading what it actually says does actually make it sound like Vermont was out of control in allowing people to train criminals to do criminal acts (what everyone else calls conspiracy).
“allowing people to train criminals to do criminal acts”
Like shooting a deer? Because to a lefty, training to shoot a deer can look identical to “training to commit mass murder” or whatever they want it to look like.
Then we are down to “intended to be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder”… so it’s an intention thing, which can be entirely subjective on their part.
So yeah, it’s a potential problem and enacting a nice fresh law they can use on us doesn’t help, even if it says the same thing.
That is not what the law said
““teach, train, or demonstrate to any other person the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, or techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT THE TEACHING, TRAINING, OR DEMONSTRATING IS INTENDED TO BE USED IN OR IN FURTHERANCE OF A CIVIL DISORDER”
That is already illegal in 49 other states, and I would be shocked if the Vermont definition of conspiracy didn’t already cover that.
That caveat does mean it does not apply to something legal like deer hunting.
Sometimes the devil is in the details.
Subjective – As in they get to define the intent, not you.
Guess which way a non 2nd amendment friendly court is going to swing.
That issue is activist judges not the law. This law as written does nothing that is not already the law in every red state.
American Common Law has been defining reasonable as a term for centuries at this point, leftist judges redefining it is a problem, one we will have to solve at the ballot box by selecting people who could win elections (although Vermont is far beyond us in any circumstances).
Remember how bad the left looked with the don’t say gay stuff?
And the judge gets to define what you “reasonably should have known.”
And that criterion ratchets in time and according to party in power.
No thanks.
You do realize that is applied in every other state all the time for deciding if somebody is an accessory or conspirator or innocent right?
There is nothing imposed in this law that isn’t already imposed nationwide.
I just means that if someone who attended a firearms safety course in 2024 goes on to committ an armed felony in 2032 they can come back to that business and shake them down for money. Maybe even bring charges against the unfortunate schmuck who taught class that day.
1. Do you intend on training people to commit acts of public violence and destruction of property to others knowing that is their goal?
2. What would this law have to do with that when it wasn’t passed at the time?
3. I do not expect the state of Vermont to enforce this law equally, which is why I want someone who could actually win the 2024 presidential election so the U.S. Federal government could exert positive influence instead of throwing it away and having the U.S. Federal Government on the blue side. Which federal judges are appointed also has a major impact and your insistence on picking horrible candidates means there will be many more Biden judges.
4. If you think Jeff Bezos is a communist your an idiot.
5. Designed to stop conservatives? From what everything the law listed is illegal in 49 states, conspiracy is already a crime.
6. I highly doubt you want Antifa in Florida to be able to train for a subversive civil war, and it can’t if they did the things this law describes Florida police officers would arrest them!
If you want us to have some influence in blue states that means we need to win presidential elections.
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania all hate Trump, Arizona and Georgia don’t like Trump either. There is no path to the White House without those states.
Your empty rhetoric is as stupid as it is harmful to our side, and if you have given up to such an extent you are thinking of backing subversive militias rising up against the government get out of politics.
What are you doing here if you have given up? You gave up stop trying to force us to lose in order to vindicate your defeatism.
So you’re trusting the government to apply the law fairly and without favor.
That’s adorable.
So you are admitting it isn’t the law that is a problem but the people running it?
Then perhaps instead of trusting in Vermont we should try to get some power outside of Vermont from a part of the government with power.
Perhaps that could be by nominating senators who will not vote for Biden’s judicial nominees, and a presidential candidate who could win.
There is nothing banned in that law that isn’t already banned in Florida or Texas.
Let’s just entirely ignore that the core purpose of the second amendment is to empower the people to resist, remove, and replace a tyrannical government… and that today we have more tyrants and enemies of freedom in power of America than ever before.
Let’s hear from your favorite Republican, Danny:
“Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the US are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”
–ABRAHAM LINCOLN
That is not what is in the constitution what is in the constitution is that an armed population is needed so we could call up militias.
The reason the 2nd amendment gave us the right to bear arms was most definitely not so we could overthrow the government.
The people who threw out a tyrannical government didn’t intend the 2nd to be a defense against tyranny? Even though they said that was its purpose?
You are free to read the primary sources sir.
Here is the text of the 2nd
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Rest assured if you had lied about what an amendment that is a single sentence long in class you would have gotten an F. I do not for a second believe you got amnesia about what the Constitution itself said.
Not a single one of the founding fathers intended on the 2nd being how to overthrow the United States government. There was a European country that had overthrow of the government as a defense from tyranny as a right (Poland-Lithuania) and none of the founding fathers considered that a good model.
The Constitution was not a radical anarchistic document, and yes the reason they put in the 2nd amendment is in the 2nd amendment.
James Maddison goes explicit and discusses the militia being under control of the state government in the federalist papers.
If you had helped someone burn down a building in the founding fathers time you would wish to got you were never born because colonial prisons are not pleasant places.
Why are we defending the right to commit public acts of violence here? It is neither an acceptable position nor would it be a position we hold in any other circumstance.
Danny, you still claiming the democRATS didn’t cheat in 2020? LOL!
It was cheating to censor the internet.
If you mean voter fraud are you obsessed with hearing me say what Clarence Thomas has also said?
If voter fraud was happening it would have been alleged in a court of law. How stupid do you think Trump is?
It would be an impeachable offense for a judge to grant a frivolous suit in order to comply with a media narrative.
Do you intend on training people to commit acts of public violence and destruction of property to others knowing that is their goal?”……Self defense fits that definition also.
Please cite an equivalent law from one of the other 49 states.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/aiding-abetting/
“Aiding and abetting requires the existence of both a “principal” and an “accessory.” The principal is the person who is primarily responsible for the crime and who likely ultimately committed the crime. If two or more individuals are responsible for a crime they can be charged as joint principals. The accessory is the person who assists with the crime but is not directly involved with its actual commission. Typically, the test for distinguishing between the two is whether the person directly contributed to the crime (a principal) or merely provided background help or assistance (an accessory).”
Knowingly training someone who intends to commit a violent felony on how to commit that felony without doubt qualifies.
Don’t believe me here is from North Carolina
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/aiding-and-abetting/
“Under the common law doctrine of aiding and abetting, a person is considered to be a principal to a crime when:
(1) a crime is committed by another,
(2) the person knowingly advises, instigates, encourages, procures, or helps the other person commit the crime, and
(3) his or her actions or statements caused or contributed to the commission of the crime by the other person.”
Everything described by the statute in question is covered by aiding and abetting.
https://www.federaldefensenc.com/criminal-defense/federal-crimes/conspiracy/#:~:text=You%20could%20be%20charged%20with,other%20individual%20created%20an%20agreement
Knowingly helping someone commit a violent crime qualifies.
So yes there are equivalent laws in every state.
You are free to be outraged that you can’t knowingly train someone who you know intends to blow up the state capitol to blow up the state capitol in Vermont, you can’t do it in any of the other states either however.
I’m curious where my post about the definition of “civil disorder” went?
Your comments advocating terrorist activity and/or violence against both other Americans and the United States government have earned you a place in automatic comment moderation. This means that, unlike virtually everyone else on this site, your comments are not put through until a human being looks at them. This can take time since we don’t have a person who focuses solely on comment moderation. Comments that directly or indirectly advocate violence will be removed. This move protects this site from legal and other challenges based on our comment section.
as if everyone that went thru a hunter safety course never ever strayed and shot someone on purpose….
“Reasonably should know”-That line eliminates that instructor from responsibility.
I recommend Ethan Allen by Willard Sterne Randall or Those Turbulent Sons of Freedom by Christopher S. Wren if you would like to read about Ethan Allen and/or the Green Mountain Boys.
“The Gods of the Valleys are not the Gods of the Hills and you will know this”
Republican Governor.
GOPdem
The Illinois case before the Supremes is impressive by the Left, If allowed to stand it specifically described the “assault” “weapons of war” as dangerous because of long range accuracy. The Left’s next target will be “sniper rifles”. I believe the goal is to limit one to a short range, inaccurate firearm with limited capacity to be useful only in a qualified and controlled “home” setting. Safe, legal and rare. Uncle Joe’s shotgun with bird shot only. Nothing says freedom like being under the watchful eye of government viewing one though mil-dot optics of a Nightforce ATACR scope. Paging Lon Horiuchi.
Some people have earned the “right” to be sheeple. Want to get on THE list? Just speak the words of the Founders or Winston Churhchill (be arrested in UK).
I’m confused. Isn’t that how you “get off the list” of sheeple?
“THE” list is not the sheeple one. Sheeple don’t know about Churchill or The Founders. They are content to watch Oprah or The View.
Yeah. Not one of those vile d/progs!!!
Thank you, Recucklicans.
in a state that has sent Bernie Sanders to Congress for what feels like a century.
At least they can no longer claim they only sent him to Washington to keep him from stinking up Vermont.
Bernie is not from Vermont. He is a New York carpetbagger that never held a job in his life. Unfortunately, he is an example of what is happening all over the country. A few cities are taken over by progressives moving in from away and running the entire thing into the dirt. Ask me how I know as I watched “The Screamer” midget Dean ruin everything he touched. He also was not born in the state
He wasn’t elected to Congress from New York. Jeez, talk about gaslighting.
My friend, there is a difference between being elected from someplace and being from there. He is not a Vermonter.
Decepticon?
So, clinical training is out? Also, the manufacture of scalpels and other bladed instruments, as well as vacuums to remove the carbon evidence? Levine’s will have to forego his dreams of Herr Mengele, and Obama his abortion of “burdens”.
In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Romanovs, England passed gun control laws to protect the monarchy from communists… plus dealing with the Irish problem. The reason was to prevent civil discord which could lead to the loss of the Royals. Much can be crushed to maintain “order”. We have had politicians violate the Constitution to save it…. much like raping a young girl to save virginity. Serfdom is on the rise. Liberty and freedom are too dangerous for the populace… in this modern case… an ignorant one.
“In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Romanovs, England passed gun control laws to protect the monarchy from communists”
I wonder if the Fabian Society had anything to do with that? That would be ironic given that they were all communists.
For anyone favoring “socialism”…. the end game is the same as communism… just takes longer.
….oy oy oy.
Huh. As a direct descendent of someone that marched south with Gen Stark to the Battle of Bennington and then joined up with Ethan and The Boys this ruling is why my wife and I left the Green Mountain State after my family has been there over 250yrs. People from away moved in and took it over. It is no longer the State I grew up in.
King George’s “civil disturbance” was James Madison’s “revolution” and rebellion against tyranny.
When you consider that here in the United States we have an officially-recognized right to keep and bear arms, and that the right is specifically retained by the people in order to cow politicians who step out of line, and to kill them if it become necessary, it seems ridiculous to assert that we can’t talk about actually doing or planning to do these things. Such speech, as inflammatory as it may seem, is political speech, and political speech is particularly recognized as falling within the category of protected speech, that is, speech that cannot be curtailed (at least by government). Some would ask “What good is a right if you can’t exercise it?” (Indeed, I’ve asked that myself.) But we can also ask, “What good is a right if we can’t talk about using it, or plan for its use?”
A government has a right and obligation to use maximum force to crush and utterly destroy a revolution.
If King George III had won James Maddison would have been hanged. Parliament year after year gave King George III the budget and military for crushing the revolution.
So which is it do we have rights now or are we trying to overthrow the government (in which case we don’t we are criminals).
Enough of this insanity. We are not overthrowing the United States government, talk about doing it is utterly insane, trying to is illegal, and if we are trying to the United States government has a right and obligation to crush us just as King George III did (remember the long drawn out war? The many battles? Naval battles? Ambushes, mass destruction of the Revolutionary War? Remember the length of war?).
The right to keep and bear arms is about self defense today according to the Supreme Court and according to the text of the Constitution this is what it said at the time written
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That sounds an awful lot like it is about militias to me.
The only country that ever had overthrow of the government as a right was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and how did that work out for them?
We lost a presidential election and are suffering the consequences of a horrible party being in charge.
The remedy is nominate someone who could in not go into insanity.
And yes defending your right to knowingly aid in public violence, and destruction of property is insanity.
Yes, those that signed the Declaration of Independence were traitors to England. But, one is only a traitor in the end if one loses. 2A is about defense against a usurping power… not just around the home. You have diminished the intent just like any good leftist would. Have your read the Federalist Papers?
I have to respond to myself to answer you Bob but the Federalist Papers discuss how the presence of the state militias will restrain ability and desire of the United States Federal Government to lord it over states due to being the only one with a professional military.
The sovereignty vested in states by the founding fathers became curtailed dramatically however after the Civil War, and saw a second reduction after the civil rights era.
If you go down the road of what the Federalist Papers talked about you have arguably eliminated the entire purpose of the 2nd because all militias (as in National Guard) are now under anywhere between federal oversite to federal control.
Our founding documents have to do with running a government not abolishing government.
The state militia to thwart the federal usurpation has been the main point for many gun control proponents. However, that every one be armed took it a step deeper. There were corrupt state governments at the time of The Bill of Rights. While I doubt the Founders fully understood this, if the state could stop federal interference, what protected the people within the state from similar usurpation? Feds were checked. Only the individuals could check the illegal advances of the state. This became obvious in the post Civil War South. The National Guard is a federal allied state extension of a standing army and in no way a true state militia separate and distinct from the federal. The NG is promoted as the only true militia.
Will not be applied to an Islamberg, or to any Red Diaper summer camps.
But Vermont has banned Appleseed events.
Vermont: where New York loons who love the cold go.
Who is the dude to his right?