Author Topic: VT - The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Vermont  (Read 427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FWiedner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
VT - The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Vermont
« on: September 16, 2005, 04:28:29 AM »
The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Vermont

BY JAMES JARDINE

LYNDON -- Richard Gorham and Robert Hamel trace their roots back a long way in Vermont.

Hamel, 61, of Lyndon, is a fourth-generation Vermonter. Gorham, 54, of Mount Hunger, said his ancestry goes all the way back to the first couple to settle Kirby. The first Gorhams came to Vermont with a pair of oxen, he says.

Talking to the two on the front porch of Rick's Gun Shop and Mount Hunger Archery in Mount Hunger, a gun and archery shop founded by Gorham in 1992, it's apparent they have a core belief in their constitutional rights as Americans to own firearms and to own private property. Both men believe constant vigilance is required to safeguard those freedoms.

The shop, which includes an archery range, is a busy place with a constant stream of customers and a phone that rings every few minutes.

Customers look at firearms, purchase ammo, use the archery range and chat about the upcoming hunting season. A customer completes a background check form, and Gorham calls it in to obtain approval prior to the sale of a firearm.

Out on the front porch, Gorham points up the road to a forested area and describes his 10-acre piece of land. He says it is the spot where he nurtures wildlife, hunts game and hopes to be buried.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law," and the Fifth Amendment says private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Article One of the Vermont Constitution declares "acquiring, possessing and protecting property" is an "inalienable right."

Vermont's Constitution says government may only take private property for public use "when necessity requires it" and that "the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money."

Still, Gorham wonders if those guarantees mean much these days, when the government can take his most cherished possession - his land - and "run a pipeline though it" or condemn his land by eminent domain and use it for a public purpose such as a highway or a sewer line.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that under certain circumstances a municipal government can take private property and resell it to a private developer so that the municipality may obtain "public benefit" from the higher property taxes generated by a new private development.

Gorham said the founding fathers, when they drafted the U.S. Constitution, had in mind the idea of "protecting us from our government."

He believes the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to own firearms through the Second Amendment, which reads: "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."

He said citizens should have the right to own firearms for hunting, personal protection and, if necessary, to take up arms if an illegal government seizes power and violates the rights of the citizenry.

A Different Take

Robert Gensburg, a St. Johnsbury lawyer who lives in East Burke, has a different interpretation of the Second Amendment, bringing into focus the ability of two honest men to disagree on what our Constitution means.

Gensburg and Gorham are neighbors on Mount Hunger Road and, though they disagree in a few political areas, each respects the other. Gorham speaks warmly of Gensburg, saying the attorney allows him to hunt on his private property; Gorham has offered moose meat to the Gensburgs.

Gensburg, in turn, smiles when he good-naturedly tells Gorham the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own arms.

But Gorham is deadly serious about what he perceives as a continuing effort to extinguish the right to gun ownership. He said there are people who oppose the "idea of protecting us from our government," and that those people believe "the Constitution has had its day, and it's time to change it." Some, he said, even want to get rid of it.

Gorham said Vermont is very high in the percentage of guns owned per capita, and he believes that's "part of the reason we have been safe for so long."

Robert Hamel believes "the Constitution was written by people like me." He calls himself a firm believer in our Constitution, saying, "There's only one way you can see the Constitution when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms." Hamel also believes gun ownership is constantly under siege.

He is not sure how he feels about registration of guns, but he is quick to say certain persons - such as someone who threatens a family member with a gun during a domestic dispute - should lose the right to own firearms for life.

Hamel has taught firearms safety for 12 years, and he stopped by Gorham's to check on registrations for an upcoming firearm safety course.

Like Gorham, the right to own private property is sacred to Hamel. He spoke quietly, but passionately, about the meaning of private property and the peace and enjoyment he gets out of his 14-acre piece of land with a camp on it. He goes there for the peace and quiet, to hunt and to vacation, and it's obvious it's his favorite spot on Earth.

Hamel talked about how deep the roots of private property ownership and firearm ownership run in Vermont. He said it's hard for him to imagine living in a city and never owning a home.

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/special_news/story/a0ec46e44

.
They may talk of a "New Order" in the  world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and worst tyranny.   No liberty, no religion, no hope.   It is an unholy alliance of power and pelf to dominate and to enslave the human race.

Offline Shorty

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
VT - The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Ve
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2005, 08:58:10 AM »
And THAT'S why each state has two senators and we have an electoral collge for president!  Otherwise, small states like Vermont or Wyoming just wouldn't matter when it comes to national policy.

Offline Mikey

  • GBO Supporter
  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
VT - The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Ve
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2005, 02:56:21 AM »
I used to live in Vermont and thoroughly enjoyed not having to worry about pistol permits and the like when I lived there.  I cannot tell you the number of times I walked into guns shops, laid down my money and then went home with the pistol.  If I didn't like it I could go right back on Monday and turn it over for something else.  I NEVER worried about crime as I do now in NY.

Interesting thing about the Constitution - it wasn't written by lawyers.  It was written by plain men who spoke plain english and who designed it to protect what they felt were their god-given rights, and those were not subject to interpretation.

Those who want a change should go live where there are no constitutionally protected rights and see wheat they think then.  People like Gensburg have never been beaten into slavery, or watched their homes taken and seen their family shot or imprisoned and it is only through the protections afforded us through the Constitution that allows him to think so indifferently.  

As for Eminent Domain - something tells me that will be one of the first cases Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court review.  My attorney tells me there are already multiple challenges to the swing vote results of Associate Justice O'Connor.  My concern was that might take a while and in the intermim local municipalities could abuse the application.

One thing you can do is to seek a local injunction against any Eminent Domain applications until the Supreme Court weighs the case.  Another thing that can be done is to establish a local ordinance against the abuse of Eminent Domain by requiring full public disclosure and a full public vote to authorize each and every Eminent Domain seizure.  That would mean that every single time the local politicians want to take someone's 5 or 10 acres of land they have to seek full public approval through a full public vote - politicians like that hate to see something like their 'authorities' brought into the light of day.  

I would, and intend to take the same route with an abuse of taxation powers.  Man, I just love throwing monkey wrenches.

But, one trick with Eminent Domain is to never argue your tax assessment, just pay the taxes, but every couple of years get your property re-appraised so that if they ever do come to try and use Eminent Domain against you, they won't be limited to paying you just what your lands and properties are assessed at, they will have to pay whay you have had them appraised at, and the difference could easily be too much for the coffers of the municipality to stand.  I workin' on that one locally.  Mikey.

Offline 1911crazy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4793
  • Gender: Male
VT - The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Ve
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2005, 03:44:29 AM »
Since all this Eniment Domain stuff started in Ct. and continues to this day there's a  time that "WE" must remember the "sleezy politicians" who we put in office are pushing this land grabbing BS. Its at election time we must remember these sleeze bags and put them out of politics for the rest of their sleezy lives.  Its time to pay these lowlife SOB's back.  They are trying to grab prime sea front property from home owners.  It was done many years ago in Bristol,Ct. they used Eniment Domain to grab a local farm that was owned for generations by the same family.  They stole the land, cleared the land of all the buildings and it just sits to this day, they never did anything with it.  They used Eniment Domain to steal this land for nothing from these people they abused the eniment domain laws to legally do it too.  These land grabbering politicians should also go to jail for doing this too it was a big mistake.  It  could of happen to anyone of us too with these big corporate companies who promise more tax money and screw us the little guy in the end its totally BS.......

They are trying to grab shore front property for condo's and apartments and thats not right!!!!!!!
With a housing shortage comming soon this could be a big problem too.

In CT. they have taxed the manufacturing companies to either death or drove them out of state so now they have lost what little extra tax revenue they had and now they are looking for a way out of this problem when they caused it themselves?  Our industry is all but gone here right now there's very little left here. Let them eat cake, they baked it!!!!!

Some of our other states moved quickly to block this from happening to their citizens but CT. hasn't yet the fight continues to this day for these people why??  I think someone has their hand in someones pocket book somewhere?