No, the “paramilitary training” facility in pawlet that obviously influenced the writing of this bill was already a flagrant zoning violation at the local level in a number of ways. It’s just that zoning enforcement takes a while because due process of law and all that jazz, and Banyai is an uncommonly bad faith actor who is willing to face jail time rather than admit he’s got no case. If the legislature actually cared about this as a real land use issue, they could take a look at the powers delegated to municipalities for zoning enforcement, or the statutorily define process for zoning enforcement cases that wind up in environmental court. In any event, it’s a solution in search of a problem, and the worst kind of performative legislating.

I think it’s pretty obvious that the open carry ban piece, if passed, would never ultimately survive a second amendment challenge, but is also likely in violation of the state constitutional right to bear arms as well. If the piece about “paramilitary training” facilities covers even non-commercial peaceable assembly for the sake of militia training, that seemingly violates the first and second amendments on its face.

Preempting municipal zoning to ban commercial firearms training facilities statewide is probably also not constitutionally survivable, but that’s the piece that seems closest to passing the sniff test out of the litany of problematic clauses in this bill