Vermont’s “Taking Game” and Universal Background Checks

April 19, 2018

by John Klar

At times, government rightly employs the power of eminent domain to “take” property – for railroads, roadways, prisons, power plants, etc. But the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution restrains government from “taking” the property of citizens without just compensation.

In Vermont in the 1970’s, Route 91 cut through swaths of dairyland as it connected northern Vermont with Flatland, and farmers who refused to sell were awarded monetary sums determined by courts after due opportunity to be heard. This was the “taking” of private property for public need, with court oversight and approval of the fairness of compensation. (However, in many cases the government only paid for the strip of land on which the highway was constructed, not the fertile back pastures that were severed from grazing use, some of which remain unreachable today except by passing over others’ lands.)

Recent legislation requires that all transfers of firearms between private Vermont citizens be subjected to a “background check” under criminal penalty. The constitutionality of requiring a background check for prior government approval of the exercise of an express constitutional freedom will be challenged. But even if it is ruled that the government is no longer restrained by the Second Amendment (and Vermont Constitution Article 16) from such a screening of citizens, the imposition of a fee raises additional constitutional concerns: especially when the fee (which some have suggested may reach $100) may often exceed the value of the transferred property.

About twenty years ago, I bought my first handgun (a Ruger .22 semi-automatic) in the parking lot of the Barre Auditorium at the annual Barre Gun Show (from my cousin, for $110). I paid no fee. I still own that gun today. Ironically, that same cousin is now shopping for a .22, but he’s looking for a revolver. But if I want to resell my Ruger .22 back to him I can’t even do it in my back yard, and if I charge him $100 that will be absorbed by the transfer fee. If I ever sell this handgun legally, it’s economic value is now unlikely to equal the fee to be charged for its transfer. My property has been taken. No Due Process; no measure of value, or of just compensation; no opportunity to appeal. For a $50 shotgun (I have at least two of those), it would be cheaper to throw it away than to incur the government’s “fee.” More than taken: the government has transformed my assets into liabilities.

I have another cousin who is pleased with this new legislation: he contends that he only requires his 20-gauge shotgun for protection, and sees no reason why anyone else should “need” anything more. But the irony returns: he is a registered medical marijuana patient, and he will never again be able to legally purchase a firearm anywhere in the U.S.A. (Until last week, he could have bought one from a private citizen in Vermont, but no longer. He had better keep that 20-gauge well-oiled….). The Legislature has taken his right without even imposing a fee. No compensation, no hearing, no appeal. And this denial for marijuana users has already been unsuccessfully challenged in several federal courts and it is settled law: he uses pot and can’t buy a gun ever again.

More rights will be lost as veterans with PTSD, patients treating for depression or anxiety, or other categories of citizens are silently marked for refusal from background check clearance, being treated worse than convicted felons — felons are granted the constitutional guarantees of criminal procedure, including a trial before their peers, prior to the stripping of their rights as citizens.

Vermont took title to land for highways and railroads with court review and fair payment; it took more than the market value of thousands of Vermonters’ guns with zero court review while imposing fees and paying nothing in compensation; it took sickly Vermont pot smokers’ right to ever purchase a gun again, without paying a cent or even enduring the discomfort of providing an explanation.

Imagine if the right to vote were taken from medical marijuana patients (silently, by bureaucratic fiat), and they were informed on election day that they could not enter the polling booth, they had no right to challenge this determination, they could not vote in future elections, and that if they ever tried to vote they would be charged with a felony and arrested. (Now some would say this would be a good law, but the Constitution is supposed to protect marijuana smokers too!). But is the Second Amendment not necessary to shield the voting booth from government intrusion? It appears that in Vermont the voting booth has been used to instead remove the shield, not only of the Second Amendment but of Due Process and protections against unlawful takings – of our property, of our liberties, of our heritage. Vermont’s Legislature is playing a very dangerous game, and it has “taken” things much too far…

– Attorney John Klar farms, and writes, from his family land in Brookfield.

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Susan Robbins April 19, 2018 at 11:04 pm

Well written. Glad to see Brookfield people who see the big picture.

Reply

RML April 20, 2018 at 2:38 am

It’s not the rural Vermont’s who want guns taken away it’s because of Chittenden county and the fact that these out of state college kids come here and bring their big city ideas to a place where those ideas are not welcomed and have been proven not to work in such a small rural state

Reply

Bernie Lewis April 20, 2018 at 9:56 pm

Good analysis. I’m sure this will be the basis of the next law suit now that the magazine ban suit has been filed. But it may be worse than just the expense of the background check. A friend who owes a gun shop has indicated that he will not do background checks for private sales due to liability issues. If other gun shops take the same position, it will not be possible to make a legal private sale.

Reply

Ted April 20, 2018 at 10:27 pm

S55 states if you have [currently] a magazine of greater capacity than 10 you may keep them. How generous. It also outlaws bump stops. If you already have one can you keep it or is there another taking? This poor excuse of a law is a solution to where there is no problem.
Phlip Phlop Phill hope you enjoyed your term as Governor. You’re out!

Reply

R. Fotion April 20, 2018 at 10:54 pm

S:55 is ANOTHER Control of the Citizenry taken by our MINDLESS Politicos. Attack the symptom NOT the Underlying causes of Shootings, which is Mental illness and Societies lack of Caring for others or their lives. Remember, Hitler’s disarming of the population to Gain CONTROL of his People. What about those who own Antique Arms. The value of theses items can EXCEED thousands of dollars. Will the owners be Compensated when the value of these pieces DROPS considerably?

Reply

Deanne April 20, 2018 at 11:58 pm

Well stated on the firearms issue.

Eminent domain is another issue of contention because it has been used abusively. If it were my family heritage that was being forced away from me, I would not see any valid justification. Government will do as government wants to do. There are a lot of things going on under the surface – connections, retaliation and intimidation by those in power, etc.

Reply

Paul Laurencelle April 22, 2018 at 6:55 am

I don’t believe there is anyway the state can know if I sell a gun to a relative.
They would have to know I own one to begin with.
There is no law requiring me to register any gun with the state.
So if I decide to give or sell my gun to a relative, there is no possible way the state could know.
In the off chance the relative gets questioned about the acquisition of the gun and my relative owns up to obtaining it from me, how would the state know if this was done before or after the law is in effect.

Reply

Jon Corrigan April 23, 2018 at 4:55 pm

The ‘State’ would know the transfer occurred before the law went into effect because of the receipt clearly showing the date of your choice.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Veto the Individual mandate bill

May 21, 2018 by John McClaughry A bill on its way to Governor Scott’s desk (H.696) will create a working group to design an individual mandate to purchase...

Bathroom Bill No Big Deal, Except It Is

May 18, 2018 by Rob Roper Come July 1st, single occupancy bathrooms in Vermont will have to be labeled in a “gender free” manner thanks to Act 127...

Roll Call! House Outlaws Single-User “Men’s” and “Ladies'” Rooms (123-19), 2018

 . H.333 AN ACT RELATING TO IDENTIFICATION OF GENDER-FREE RESTROOMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION  . PASSED in the State House of Representatives on April 21,...

History Shows What the Individual Insurance Mandate Could Look Like

May 16, 2018 by John McClaughry Last Saturday the Vermont House and Senate finalized approval of a stupid and odious bill to impose a mandate on every Vermonter...

Roll Call! House Passes $5.9 Billion FY19 Budget (117-14), 2018

. H.924 – AN ACT RELATING TO MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT  . PASSED in the State House of Representatives on May 12, 2018, by a...

Video