An act relating to prohibiting discharge of firearms within 500 feet of a child care facility or school
S.22 would create a new criminal offense prohibiting a person from knowingly discharging a firearm within 500 feet of school property or a child care facility that is open for business. The bill defines “child care facility” to include licensed child care facilities and prequalified private prekindergarten providers, and it defines “school property” broadly as property owned by a school. The prohibition would apply only when the shooter knows, or reasonably should know, that the child care facility is open, and it would not cover legitimate law enforcement discharge by federal officers or Vermont-certified law enforcement officers.
A violation would be punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The bill would take effect immediately upon passage. In practical terms, it would add a new firearms-safety restriction to Vermont criminal law and create a buffer zone around schools and child care settings, affecting firearm owners, hunters, and others who discharge firearms near those locations.
The bill would add 13 V.S.A. § 4004a to Vermont’s criminal code, expanding firearm-discharge restrictions near sensitive locations. It would create a new misdemeanor-level offense tied to proximity to schools and child care facilities, while carving out an exception for legitimate law enforcement activity. The measure would affect individuals discharging firearms near these facilities and could also influence local enforcement and public-safety practices around schools and child care sites.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record suggests a straightforward public-safety proposal with no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. The bill’s framing indicates a protective intent focused on children and school safety, and there is no evidence in the supplied context of formal controversy or amendment activity.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the 500-foot restriction, how “knowingly” and “reasonably should know” would be applied in enforcement, and whether the rule could affect lawful firearm use in rural areas near schools or child care facilities. Another likely issue is the scope of the exceptions, particularly the exclusion for law enforcement but not for other lawful discharge contexts such as hunting, target shooting, or self-defense, which could raise questions among firearm owners and sportsmen.