The state of Vermont is a weird place when it comes to guns. On one hand, they’re a constitutional carry state, which is usually an indicator that a place is pretty pro-gun.

On the other hand, they’ve got things like magazine restrictions and waiting periods for gun sales which are popular in anti-gun states.

It’s confusing, to say the least.

For the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, it’s a problem. Now, they’re suing the state over those two gun control items mentioned above.

They’re challenging Vermont’s 72-hour waiting period law and its ban on standard capacity firearm magazines.

The organization’s president, Chris Bradley, says the restrictions infringe on Vermonters’ rights to self-defense. In a statement, Bradley said, in part: “The Supreme Court made it clear that governments may not impose arbitrary and pointless restrictions like Vermont’s waiting period and its ban on commonly-owned, standard-capacity magazines. These restrictions unconstitutionally infringe on Vermonters’ fundamental right to self-defense and must be struck down.”

And let’s be real, there’s no magazine restriction or waiting period that isn’t going to be arbitrary.

In this case, it’s 72 hours, but what happens when someone gets a firearm on the 73rd hour, then does something to themselves or others. Is that going to be grounds to make it a 96 hour waiting period?

We know the Parkland killer used 10-round magazines while slaughtering innocent high school kids. Reloading wasn’t a problem for him. So, should those magazine capacities being lowered still further?

All of it is arbitrary.

And yes, they’re all pointless as well.

Waiting periods don’t stop criminals. Magazine restrictions don’t stop them either.

If Vermont is interested in actually addressing violent crime, this isn’t the way. They’re one of the safest states in the nation, but the others in the top 5? All are pro-gun states. I’ll argue that the reason Vermont is there is at least in part because of constitutional carry being the norm there, not because they started restricting gun rights.

Restricting what law-abiding people can do doesn’t tend to impact criminals. They’re already breaking the law. Why would they hesitate to break gun laws as well?

They do it in every gun-controlled state in the nation. Vermont isn’t a unique snowflake in that regard, yet the anti-gun voices there are doing all they can to make it difficult for law-abiding citizens.

The VFSC is trying to fight back, as they should. There’s no reason for this and, as they note, Bruen isn’t exactly filled with justifications for this kind of nonsense.

You’ll have to find historic analogs from back in the day to support magazine restrictions or impose waiting periods, and you’re just not going to find those. They don’t exist. That’s because out Founding Fathers knew better.

During the time of incorporation, even, they knew better.

It’s only states like Vermont that can’t seem to learn the lesson. Gun rights matter. They do not, however, lead to crime and restricting them makes no one safer. It just doesn’t happen and it’s not going to happen.