Daniel Banyai Slate Ridge Range Vermont
A Vermont “environmental” court judge has ordered Daniel Banyai (right) arrested for zoning violations involving his private shooting range, which the judge ordered destroyed. (Photo Courtesy Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division.)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Lee Williams 

A Vermont “environmental” court judge has ordered shooting range owner Daniel Banyai be arrested and held in state prison until he or the town he’s been feuding with for years over zoning issues – Pawlet, Vermont, population 1,386 – destroys all the structures on his private range. 

This week, Judge Thomas Durkin, of the environmental division of Vermont’s superior court. issued a rarely seen writ of mittimus – a type of arrest warrant – to all law enforcement officers in the state. 

“BY THE AUTHORITY 0F THE STATE OF VERMONT, any sheriff or constable in this state is directed to arrest Daniel Banyai, and remit him to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections, to be thereafter confined until he or the Town causes the subject property to be brought into compliance with the March 5, 2021, Order, as described in the February 8, 2023 Contempt Order, to the court’s satisfaction,” Judge Durkin wrote. 

As of Thursday night, Banyai was at home, waiting to be arrested. 

“Please help me,” he said in a text. “I am fighting all alone.” 

Banyai and Pawlet town officials have been feuding over his 30-acre range, which Banyai calls Slate Ridge, since he purchased the property in July 2013. Initially, his neighbors complained about the noise. Town officials said Banyai built structures on his land without applying for the proper zoning permits.

Banyai countered by saying that his range is safe and includes a “firearms education center” and an organic farm. Besides, he teaches students of all types for free, he said. 

None of that mattered to Pawlet town officials. After their initial zoning efforts failed, they sued Banyai in Vermont’s environmental court, which ordered Banyai to remove the un-permitted structures and earthen berms within 135 days. Banyai ignored the ruling, and in February the environmental court held Banyai in contempt of court. He has been racking up civil fines at the rate of $200 per day ever since.

“Respondent has demonstrated a willfulness, perhaps even an enthusiasm, for disregarding the Town’s Bylaws, this Court’s Orders, and the authority of the Judiciary,” Judge Durkin wrote in his February contempt-of-court order. 

In his writ of mittimus issued Thursday, Judge Durkin explained that he offered Banyai a “compliance schedule to give Respondent final opportunity to bring his property into compliance.”

“Respondent has failed to do so. As such, imprisonment is an appropriate coercive remedy in these circumstances,” Durkin wrote. 

Daniel Banyai Slate Ridge Range Vermont
Daniel Banyai’s Slate Ridge range headquarters (Photo courtesy Daniel Banyai’s GiveSendGo account)


“A lot of people are floored that Daniel will end up in prison over a zoning violation,” Banyai’s attorney Robert J. Kaplan told the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project Thursday night. 

Kaplan said that there are additional factors that aren’t fully explained in the court documents. 

“A lot of people in the community didn’t like the fact that Daniel offered people a place to shoot, and it’s a dynamic facility, not just a flat range,” Kaplan said. “Vermont has a lot of leftists. Guns scare them and people moving around with guns really scares them. The people in the town formed a posse to drive the new guy out of town – over zoning issues.” 

Kaplan pointed out that after municipal and environmental laws failed, Pawlet officials approached Vermont State Senator Phillip Baruth for help. He quickly sponsored a bill making it a felony to operate a “paramilitary training camp” within the state.

Baruth, a liberal Democrat from Burlington, admitted he introduced the bill after Pawlet officials complained there was no state law that they could use to force Banyai to shutter his private range on his private property. 

In May, Vermont’s Gov. Phil Scott — a Republican — signed the bill into law.


(a) A person shall not:

(1) teach, train, or demonstrate to any other person the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, or techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the teaching, training, or demonstrating is intended to be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder; or

(2) assemble with one or more other persons for the purpose of practicing or being taught, trained, or instructed in the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death, or in techniques capable of causing injury or death to persons, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the practicing, teaching, training, or instruction is intended to be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder.

“Vermont enacted the anti-paramilitary training law based entirely on the false premise about what was happening at Mr. Banyai’s facility,” Kaplan said. “People in the legislature imagined what might have been happening at Mr. Banyai’s facility – training for a revolution against the government – none of it was. They made this crazy law banning the ability to train with firearms in the state – all for something that never existed.” 

Federal lawsuit 

Kaplan said Banyai had no choice but to file a federal civil rights lawsuit, which alleges violations of his Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendants include the Town of Pawlet, Judge Thomas S. Durkin and 20 unnamed defendants identified as John and Jane Does, because their identities are not known. 

In his suit, Kaplan points out prejudicial statements made by numerous officials – including Vermont’s governor – condemning Banyai and his range. The statements were published in The New York Times, This American Life radio program, and numerous other media outlets. 

“These stories, which typically contained false, misleading, or inaccurate information about Plaintiff and Slate Ridge, were published frequently in order to tarnish Plaintiff’s reputation, stir unfounded and irrational fear and anxiety among residents and Vermont officials, and to pressure local government to aggressively intervene against the Plaintiff and Slate Ridge,” the lawsuit alleges. “Ultimately, the pressure imposed by a coalition of anti-gun activist residents, political actors and other activists worked. Plaintiff’s validly issued permit was revoked based on a convoluted and constitutionally defective application of zoning law, which was inexplicably upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court. Defendants, emboldened by media adulation and political support, aggressively sought to prosecute and punish Plaintiff by way of civil enforcement to compel Plaintiff to remove the building and shooting ranges he constructed on his property. However, Defendants’ conduct was not limited to just shutting down Slate Ridge. Through the civil enforcement action, Defendants unlawfully sought to force the deconstruction and removal of unrelated farming structures on Plaintiffs property. Far from questioning the significant overreach, abuse of power and egregious interference of private property rights, local residents, the media, and high-ranking government officials, including Governor Phil Scott, encouraged and cheered the violation of Plaintiffs civil rights every step of the way.”

Kaplan sought an injunction to prevent any harm from occurring in state court while he pursued federal relief, which is pending. 

In his federal lawsuit, Banyai is seeking: 

  • A finding that Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of Plaintiffs Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. 
  • An order terminating the permanent injunction filed against the Property prohibiting any firearms related activity. 
  • An order reinstating the June 2018 Permit.  
  • An order enjoining and restraining Defendants from enforcing all prior, current or future orders requiring the deconstruction and removal of Plaintiffs gun ranges, berms and farm structures.  
  • Awarding actual, nominal, punitive, compensatory, and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 
  • Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended in connection with the prosecution of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 
  • Awarding such other relief as this Court may deem just, proper, and equitable. 

A GiveSendGo account has been established for Daniel Banyai, which seeks to raise funds for his legal defense. 

Pawlet’s nonresponse 

Neither Pawlet Town Board Chair Michael Beecher, nor Pawlet Town Attorney Merrill Bent, or First Constable David Ricard, Sr., responded to multiple calls or emails seeking their comments for this story. 


The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

This story is part of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and is published here with their permission.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. good.

    we generally can not countenance people who openly defy orders of the courts in their jursidiction.

    Just a straight-up lawbreaking asshole who thinks he’s above the law.

        • “…he follows the ol’ jism trail.”

          That leads directly under his chin… 🙂

    • But enough about Hunter Biden…

      On a related note, how dare Rosa Parks sit at the front of the bus. Just a straight-up lawbreaking asshole who thinks she’s above the law.

      • Let’s not forget Harriet Tubman. Ain’t it amazing how much the fascists like jizzsled screech about law and order. And how quiet they were when they were looting and burning during their ‘mostly peaceful’ protests.

    • Imagine defending local government petty regulation BS that violates property rights. It’s obvious this guy is being railroaded

      • “local government petty regulation BS that violates property rights”

        So I take it that you are opposed to zoning laws and ordinances?

        So anyone should be permitted to construct a large hog farm immediately adjacent to your property without any sort of permitting?

        Adult entertainment venues across the street from the elementary school, no problem?

        After all, it’s their property, right?

        • Yep when the GOV’T tells you to sit down and “SHUT UP” you would be on your knees begging for more!!!!

          Since you are an obediant MARXIST!!!!

        • JRM, It was a republican governor who signed the bill into law, take it up with him.

          “Vermont on Monday made it a crime to own or operate paramilitary training camps in the state after Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed legislation introduced in response to a firearms training facility built without permits that neighbors called a menace.“

      • “Imagine defending local government petty regulation BS that violates property rights“

        So to connect this up with another TTAG thread, how about we build a nuclear power plant next-door to your farm, it’s part of our property rights so no problem, right?

        And don’t worry, in the interest of freedom, we won’t apply for any permits or licenses, all part of our property rights.

    • I gotta say, I agree.
      The second amendment doesn’t even hint at a right to violate zoning laws.
      Did you know you can be arrested and jailed because your tail light is broken? Well, not really, but if you’re issued a fixit ticket for a broken tail light and you don’t get it fixed, then you can, indeed be arrested and jailed; of course, it’s not for the broken tail light, but for the contempt of court/failure to appear warrant that will be issued.
      In this case, he’s not being harassed (legally) for the range, but for refusing to obey the zoning laws. It’s a shame for two reasons: one, his neighbors don’t like his range and resort to this to get rid of it, and, two, he allowed it to get to this point. He, and he alone, is responsible for that second one.

      • Actually you are not correct, you can pay the fine and not fix the broken taillight. If you don’t drive the vehicle , you will not receive another summons.

        • Yeah, it’s driving on public roads. There is no right in the Constitution to use public roads. You can mostly drive on your own land — providing you have the approved fire prevention exhaust system — with a car that is not roadworthy. It’s the creeping federalism and we are like the frog in the pot.

          The first thought in my mind upon reading the headline was “A well-regulated militia . . .” The well regulated part meant a militia that knew how to fight 18th century style. Remember VonStuben teaching the soljurs at Valley Forge how to drill? That was because until VonStuben came on the scene they were not well regulated. Small guerrilla groups can make hit and run raids without much in the way of military training but any large scale group must have military training in order to be effective. Even the Afghanis who were highly irregular practiced well-known small unit tactics
          When the Viet Cong tried large unit tactics during the Tet Offensive, they got their butts royally kicked.

        • “Well-regulated” is defined in dictionaries of the time.

          It means “functioning as expected” or “working properly”. Clocks that kept good time were said to be “well-regulated”, for example.

          So, if you were to rewrite the original intent of the words used in the 2A into the modern parlance you’d get something like this:

          “The security of a free state is dependent on a properly functioning Militia, therefore the public shall have the inalienable right to keep and carry arms.”

          The context of the 2A comes post Lexington and Concord where we often seem to forget the objective of British troops was to capture armories and stores of powder so as to render the colonists defenseless and stamp out resistance quickly due to a lack of armaments.

          The Founders saw the remedy to this as dispersing arms amongst the population so that a hostile force couldn’t capture a single location and disarm a large geographic area at a single stroke.

          People who are armed can get training and become more effective. People who are disarmed can train all they want and they will still have no chance against an armed force. This was considered obvious at the time.

    • Hey, Jiz, there’s a class coming up at your local community college. “Pounding sand 101”. I think you should enroll.

    • the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed. A nullification case if they ever DARE take it to trial. Fuck you and the horse oyu road in on.jizz

      • “the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed“

        Which law, and in what way is it unconstitutional?

        • Freedom of assembly is a fundamental constitutional RIGHT… It does not burden that freedom with any bullshit qualifiers other than “peaceably assemble” which is apparently self-defining if the “mostly peaceful” demonstrations of 2020 are the example.

          Freedom of peaceful assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas, AND states shall make no law to supersede the US Constitution… To DENY them the right to assemble is doing just that…

        • “Freedom of peaceful assembly“

          You said it yourself, the key word is ‘peaceful’.

          Paramilitary training, by it’s very nature, is not ‘peaceful’.

          And you really should check out, as Paul Harvey would say, “the rest of the story” regarding this specific situation.

        • Yep true to a Tee for a MARXIST!!!

          So anybody arriving at any shooting range and lone behold, there are more than two people being taught how to shoot their firearms!!!

          According to your MARXIST definition, it is PARA MILITARY TRAINING!!!!

          So your MARXIST brain wants to shut down “ALL SHOOTING RANGES”!!!!!

    • ……………………/´¯/)
      ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’/
      ……….”…\………. _.·´

    • The Feds will charge the judge and all the other Karens; they will be incarcerated.

    • But your friends, the Antifags, and your other heroes over at BurnLootMurder, are just fine, right, jsled . . . you ignorant commie f**k?

      If it wasn’t for double standards, you’d have no standards at all, you useless bag of douche.

  2. We know that Vermont State Senator Phillip Baruth is a douchebag. He’s a liberal dem senator after all but what is Vermont’s Gov. Phil Scott’s excuse?

    Fucking RINO’s are the worst.

    • After reading the article, I now realize why the people of Vermont keep re-electing old Bernie Sanders.

      IMO, the people of Vermont are just as whacked out as old Bernie. Pray for the gun range owner to prevail and then sue the pants off of these intolerant people.

    • what is Vermont’s Gov. Phil Scott’s excuse?

      Maybe got his nose shoved too far up Bernies pooper to notice…

      • “what is Vermont’s Gov. Phil Scott’s excuse?“

        Maybe the fact that he actually lives in Vermont and is much more familiar with the particulars of this situation?

        “Mandy Hulett and her husband, Rich, owned a farm next to Daniel’s property. Here’s Mandy.

        Mandy Hulett
        A good friend of ours used to own that property. And he sold the property to him. And the very first time we met him, he came down to the farm. And he was actually– he was OK. But the next thing we knew– it was like two weeks later– he was erecting a gate on our property.

        Mike Giglio
        Daniel’s land is actually surrounded by other people’s property. It’s kind of like an island. So in order to access it, he has the right to cross the Huletts’ land. There’s a long driveway. Daniel put a gate at his end of it, but his gate was on the Huletts’ property. Mandy and Rich are in their 40s. They have two kids. They own a lot of farmland and a trucking company. Rich grew up there. His family’s been in the area since before the Civil War.

        Mandy Hulett
        So Rich approached him and said, “You do know that you put your gate– I don’t know– 10 feet onto our property.” And he’s like, “I’ll put my gate wherever I want to put my gate.” And Rich said, “Well, in Vermont, we put our gate on our own property or on the property line, not on somebody else’s property.”

        And I think he gave him two or three weeks to remove it. And if you don’t, I’m going to come remove it. And he’s like, “You’re never going to get that out of the ground.” So he gave him two or three weeks. And he didn’t move it. So Rich went up with a payloader and brought a witness with him as well and just picked it up off out of the ground and tossed it onto his property, back on his own property“

        • Yet no charges for this “ACCUSATION”!!!!

          Talk about spreading MARXIST MANURE AROUND!!!!

        • nice story and once again no source.
          the right to freedom of association, assemble and to learn whatever we want are protected.

  3. Lived here 73 years and say without reservation, if this sh*t can happen in what used to be the freest state in the nation, it CAN AND WILL happen in yours! Pay attention, it’s insidious and if you’re too busy earning a living to get involved, it’ll surprise you.

    • Every time I see something like this about VT, I shake my head to think that it was the original “constitutional carry” State for over two centuries, serving as the example and eventually leading 26 other States to adopt the same freedom. Then VT turncoated…

      • Yeah. I guess too many New Yorkers moved to Vermont to retire. That’s what happened to the states surrounding CA. They got Kalifornicated. Retirees would cash out their equity in overpriced housing in CA, Move, first to Oregon which they proceeded to ruin; on to Las Vegas, ditto; now on to AZ which they are slowly Kalifornicating, Washington State, Idaho — it’s like a giant tumor spreading in all directions. My own two kids are in the process of doing the same thing, one to Oregon and the other one to AZ. It’s disgusting and sickening.

        • “Yeah. I guess too many New Yorkers moved to Vermont“

          No, it was a stolen valor SovCit who moved into this small farming community and started abusing his neighbors.

          Honestly, the knee-jerk anger and rage, going off half-cocked without knowing a thing about the situation is typical conservative behavior.

        • “… the knee-jerk anger and rage, going off half-cocked without knowing a thing about the situation is typical conservative behavior.”

          Now you’re self-identifying as a conservative, Liar69er?

          You’re such a liar.

  4. Thank you to the drug legaliz@tion crowd. As I have said before, they have never supported gun rights. or property rights.

    • You don’t either. You should be jumping for joy that they sent agents of the state to enforce it.

      • And thank you to the g@y marriage crowd. They also have never supported the 1st amendment nor have they ever supported the 2nd amendment.

        • Let me get this straight, you think the same sex crowd is somehow responsible because the sovereign citizen above has chosen not to recognize the laws and ordinances of the town he chose to live in?

          Wow, snowflakes in July, amazing

    • I support drug legalization (the Feds have no right to regulate drugs in any way in the first place) and support gun rights, AND, contrary to some other commenters, I’m gay and support gay marriage and I’m a free-speech absolutist. And I’m a property rights absolutist. Some of us actually care about ALL civil rights, for everyone, not just guns for a few.

  5. Having been in Federal court on this issue, a municipality cannot “zone out” ranges. It can, however, use its “health and safety” powers to make life miserable for anyone wanting to open a range. And, if the “health and safety” requirements are “reasonable,” in the eyes of the judge, the municipality wins. This guy failed to appeal the zoning orders and is now screwed.

    • “This guy failed to appeal the zoning orders and is now screwed“

      That is a typical tactic of the SovCit crowd.

      Perhaps he should’ve made himself aware of the particular laws and ordinances in the town before he bought property there.

  6. Sounds like the little Jim Crow Gun Control town is very close to adorning themselves in sheets and brandishing torches to form a lynch mob. What the town et al are doing is as unconstitutional as unconstitutional can get…Perhaps an eventual Civil Rights lawsuit will bankrupt the town.

    The fear mongering paramilitary label shows the Governor forgets the word Militia is within the 2A and the 2A is not and never has been about Hunting ducks, etc. It is there for the security necessary for a free state. And the word Free according to historical anologies excludes the insanity coming from a fear mongering tyrant and his pals. The gov. like all RINOS are a disgrace to the Party of Lincoln.

    • ** Vermont firmly supported the Union during the Civil War and was against slavery.

      ** Vermont was the first State to legally abolish slavery.

      ** During the 1913-1948 period in which “Jim Crow” laws were enacted across 30 of the then-48 States, Vermont was one of the few that never passed any anti-miscegenation laws (ban on mixed race marriage).

      Vermont’s gun control problems have absolutely nothing to do with race, Debbie.

      • Correct, up until 2015, Vermont was one of the most 2A States in the Nation. In 2015, the Liberal Antigun Message infected the State, and it’s only gone downhill ever since.

    • “The fear mongering paramilitary label shows the Governor forgets the word Militia is within the 2A“

      You do realize of course, the United States Constitution grants the power to Congress to prescribe discipline for the militia.

      • How so, Liar69er? Are you going to try to re-define the term “well-regulated” again?

        • “How so, Liar69er?“

          By the power vested in the Congress by the United States Constitution:

          “Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,“

          All the militia members in the United States, both organized and unorganized, are subject to the rules of discipline as imposed by the United States Congress in the form of federal laws.

          That’s what the founding fathers meant by ‘well-regulated militia’, it is as simple as that.

          Really, I’m surprised that you would discuss the militia, yet not have any idea of what the United States Constitution had to say about the militia.

        • “All the militia members in the United States, both organized and unorganized, are subject to the rules of discipline as imposed by the United States Congress in the form of federal laws.”


          has already been settled previously in court. unorganized is the general population within a certain age range, they must be called to actual government service, and agree to such service (barring being drafted), before such government authority can be exerted over them.

        • “All the militia members in the United States, both organized and unorganized, are subject to the rules of discipline as imposed by the United States Congress in the form of federal laws.”

          and aside from that I already posted this is also false because, already settled in courts, …

          State ‘militias’ (e.g. National Guard) are in title 32 status, they must be in title 10 status before the federal government can exert authority over them and until then they are subject to state authority and not to congress.

        • “All the militia members in the United States, both organized and unorganized, are subject to the rules of discipline as imposed by the United States Congress in the form of federal laws.

          That’s what the founding fathers meant by ‘well-regulated militia’, it is as simple as that.”


          what ‘well-regulated militia’ meant to the founding fathers was that a state militia could fight (e.g. engage an enemy). It did not mean “subject to the rules of discipline as imposed by the United States Congress in the form of federal laws.”.

          The founding fathers were dedicated to the idea of state run militias as the ‘fighting force’, not a federal standing army. And if you look back at the origins of the Bill of Rights and do some actual research (which is something you don’t know anything about) instead of using confirmation bias and lack of context you can see that. The lack of a Bill of Rights almost doomed the constitution from being ratified, some wanted assurances of the rights of the people (oddly enough New York was one of these) and it was thought by some it was not necessary because they believed the constitution its self provided such assurances by ‘we the people’ concepts. So in order to get enough votes to ratify the Constitution, and that some ‘government elements’ of the time was already basically beginning to ‘dictate’ what ‘rights’ were, a Bill of Rights was created to further define the inherent rights the people had and among these was the second amendment (which, for the trivia buffs, was not actually the second in first drafts and was the third, but some things got changed around and it became the second in what got ratified)

        • “That’s what the founding fathers meant by ‘well-regulated militia’, it is as simple as that.

          “Really, I’m surprised that you would discuss the militia, yet not have any idea of what the United States Constitution had to say about the militia.”

          Liar69er, I’m not surprised that you would discuss the militia without knowing what you’re talking about.

          .40 cal already pointed out your lies and logic fails, better than I could.

        • clarification for “The founding fathers were dedicated to the idea of state run militias as the ‘fighting force’, not a federal standing army.”


          The founders wanted state run militias as the ‘fighting force’, and in time of need these would be called up together to form a ‘standing army’ by agreement of each state to participate. In the beginning the federal government was not to have a ‘standing army’ they controlled, the founders feared the federal government having an ‘armed standing army’ they controlled. The states feared it, wanting to have the means to defend against such if the federal government had a standing army it could employ against them (the origins of what today we call the ‘National Guard’). But, having a ready armed standing army had proven valuable to the country, so basically and reluctantly the founders allowed it to stay and it became part of federal government. The founders wanted the idea that the ‘militia’ was formed from the people in a ‘state’ (which is why they had to report with their own firearms when called to form a militia) and that militia would be controlled by the ‘state’ in which it resided and could decide to contribute to the cause or not and when not called to form a militia (the origin of the ‘unorganized militia’ – in other words, not in connection with ‘military’, e.g. malitia, service) would remain armed to have those firearms available to bring with them when they reported for militia service but also that not connected with militia service the people would have arms, firearms, to remain ready and provide for their own defense (what we call today self/home-defense).

        • Clarification for “In the beginning the federal government was not to have a ‘standing army’ they controlled, the founders feared the federal government having an ‘armed standing army’ they controlled.”

          They feared this because they had seen, and been subjected to, the tyranny of the British through their standing army controlled by the British government. They did not want our own government to have the same type of armed force power available to them that could be exerted against the people. Our country was formed with an inherent mistrust of a federal government, that it would become its own entity doing what it wanted rather than an entity of ‘we the people’ – and Biden today has proven that fear to have been founded in reality.

          Biden has threatened use of military force against the ‘people’ (gun owners are the people too). He has ‘weaponized’ the federal government against the people and employs armed force against them (e.g. the armed ATF and IRS raid on gun stores and armed ATF showing up at peoples homes without warrants trying to gain entry and implying use of force if they do not comply), and the government has become its own entity under Biden with rule by fiat (e.g. executive orders) to usurp congress and create agenda serving law. Under Biden today’s government has become what the founders feared and warned against letting happen.

      • Wow, way to encroach on the States!

        “Provide for” equals “fund” – not ‘”make and enforce rules” .

        Simple. really. Just read it.

      • OH, PUH-LEEZE, MajorLiar, don’t start with this idiot male bovine excrement AGAIN, you absolute @$$clown.

        Article I, Section 8 provides, in pertinent part: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICZE OF THE UNITED STATES (emphasis supplied), reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

        Under what circumstances would members of the militia be considered “employed in the service of” the United States, and intelligent person might ask??? Why, whaddaya know, is says RIGHT THERE, in Article I, Section 8: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”.

        HAS THERE BEEN A CONGRESSIONAL DECLARAIONT OF INSURRECTION??? Why, no, no there hasn’t. Other than the invasion of illegal aliens on our southern border, what “invasion” is occuring, and when did Congress declare it, MajorLiar.

        Go fornicate yourself, you lying sh**weasel. You are SUCH a pathetic liar, MajorLiar, that you aren’t even any challenge to mock, anymore. Nothing but a pathetic, inept, lying, Leftist/fascist @$$clown (ah, but I repeat myself).

  7. Thankyou Pawlet for protecting us from those evil paramilitary farm vegetables. Those farm vegetables are hard to train too so this may have gone on for a while, at least until harvest time. Just to think that a paramilitary vegetable might have made it into some unsuspecting farmers market sale to be used to over throw the government should send shivers up your spine.

  8. This right wing lunatic was conducting illegally a paramilitary training camp and then lying between his teeth about the true purpose of the range. Sane townspeople were frightened and horrified. You know the old saying, “You cannot fight city hall” and this paramilitary right wing lunatic is where he belongs, locked up in prison, before he goes berserk and attacks the towns people with an assault rifle along with his paramilitary jackbooted thugs.

    Fat chance this nut case will ever have a shooting range in that town again.

  9. So they passed a law afterwards? Isn’t this the definition of Ex Post Facto?

    • No. The fact that he wasn’t doing what they claim not withstanding, they passed a law that says he can’t do X and he continued to do X (allegedly, I think it is absolute BS and he is innocent).

      Had they passed a law that said you can’t do X, and he only did X before it was passed then they came after him for it; that would be ex post facto. A fine but important distinction.

  10. False Imprisonment hands down. Perhaps even conflict of interest due to the imprisonment being clearly politically motivated

  11. The people defending Banyai, are wrong. This is not about defending the 2nd Amendment. It’s not about the (sad but true) fall of the state of Vermont to left-wing loonies. It’s about a full-on asswipe who brought this all on himself. Banyai is also a stolen-valor fraud. TTAG ought to do a better job vetting these articles.

  12. we just got a similar law in Oregon. The prohibits training by and for private security . However; ANTIFA and BLM are specifically exempt.

  13. Continuing Contempt of Court? Yeah, you are going to get your ass thrown in Jail. It’s a legitimate order from a Judge, even if it is blatantly partisanly motivated.

    Two options. 1) immediately file for and receive an injunction. 2) comply with the court order, keep records, and sue for both damages and violation of civil rights.

    Option 2 is the one most rational people would take, since monetary damages guarantees standing to sue.

  14. 4071 part (1) is stupid and unenforceable (plausible deniability)… “I had NO idea they were training to engage in Civil Disorder”… PROVE THAT I DID…

    4071 part (2) is unconstitutional, deprives citizens of their freedom of assembly…

    Whole thing is stupid, guy should have complied then filed for whatever permits he needed, if the town declined to issue permits, then take their asses to court…

    • A permit is when something was legal, then government declares it as illegal, then that same government saying they’ll make an exception in your case if you give them money.

      Most permitting schemes are just that…schemes.

      • So are fines in many cases.

        “Crimes with only a fine attached mean the behavior is legal for a price”.

    • This is just so typical, another bunch of conservative snowflakes going off before they learn the details of the situation.

      Here is an in-depth examination of this issue, with actual interviews of the folks in the town and the SovCit’s neighbors.

      I found the stolen valor claims of military service particularly entertaining, it’s the same as you folks supporting Elmer Rhodes and his stories of losing his eye in military service.


      • What the fuk are you ranting about now Minerva? My statement is absolutely correct on all three parts, and I didn’t say anything about “stolen valor”, really don’t care if it’s true or not, don’t know who the fuk Elmer Rhodes is either AND don’t care… Banyai sounds like a Uni-bomber wanna-be, probably would not last long on my mountain…

    • “4071 part (2) is unconstitutional, deprives citizens of their freedom of assembly“

      You just left the word ‘peaceful’ out of your claim here, interesting.

      So it is your position that parade permits are unconstitutional?

  15. There would be No Vermont or USA if there has been no training! That Judge is an ASSHOLE FULL OF SCHITT!

  16. “Government is not reason,
    it is not eloquence,
    it is force; like fire,
    a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
    Never for a moment
    should it be left to irresponsible action.”

  17. He should have applied for the permits.
    You’ve always got to have permission from somebody to do something, it’s called Freedom.

  18. Well said my marsupial buddy. Honestly both sides seem fairly dumb. But JAIL?!? WTF🙄😧

    • Well, I dunno about anyone else, but jizled sure won me over with that convincing, well-crafted argument. I always value the opinion of someone who calls me a nasty name.

    • OOH!!! SICK BURN, j-off!!!

      Any other pearls of wisdom to impart, you mouth-breathing moron????

  19. What a fascinating display of uninformed anger, just so typical of today’s conservatives.

    Fortunately, actual journalists went to this locale and interviewed townspeople and neighbors, one may find much interesting data by reading the transcripts:

    “This American Life”
    743: Don’t You Be My Neighbor

    A couple of interesting things stood out, his claims of ‘military service’ and how his farmer neighbors handled this individual putting a gate on their property.

    Of course, most of you won’t bother availing yourself of this information, knowing how disappointing it would be to have your treasured delusional narrative crashed by pesky facts.

    • “…have your treasured delusional narrative crashed by pesky facts.”

      More projection, Liar69er. You’re the best here at not allowing your treasured delusional narrative to be tainted by anything factual. That’s why you’re such a liar.

    • MajorLiar,

      Y U always be LYIN’?????? Are you incapable of telling the truth??? (Why, yes, yes you are!).

      Whether or not he is guilty of “stolen valor” (yes, that is reprehensible conduct, if he is), has NOTHING to do with his right to conduct a lawful business. It was made RETROACTIVELY illegal, ostensibly, by another lying partisan Leftist/fascist of a governor (yes, MajorLiar, some Leftist/fascists “identify” as “Republicans” – just like Dylan Mulvaney “identifies” as a fake woman).

      IF you knew even the first thing about firearms, you would be aware that “tactical training” is commonly practiced, and a damn good way to get better prepared for an actual self-defense situation. Since you are a lying, Leftist/fascist ignoranus, we expected no more from you. “Tactical training” is not “paramilitary” training – or every handgun or rifle instructor that taught “shoot and move” drills would be guilty – and that’s EXACTLY the kind of training you fascist gun grabbers insist is NEEDED to safely keep and bear arms.

      You’ve gone WAYYYY past talking out of both sides of your mouth, and are now, quite obviously, blowing smoke up your own @$$. I guess, if it feels good enough, you’ll be a real ball of fire at the afternoon circle jerk with dacian the demented and jslag. Y’all have fun, but keep your tweezers lubed up – you wouldn’t want friction burns.

  20. Everyone can make money now a days very easily…dd…..I am a full time college student and just w0rking for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use… This Following Website.—–>>> http://Www.EarnCash7.com

  21. Judge orders Firearms training center owner arrested… What is REALLY going on here..?

  22. My religion requires weekly observances that involve gatherings for tactical training with machine guns, along with (at least) quarterly observances involving grenades, high explosives, a SAM battery, and several modern howitzers.

    How many Constitutional rights do these @sshats want to trample at once?

    • Publius,

      “How many Constitutional rights do these @sshats want to trample at once?”

      Why, that’s simple, Publius – ALL of them. They want all of “us” (people who believe in individual liberty) in “re-education camps” toot de suite. They are cordially invited to osculate my anal sphincter.


  24. I’m hesitant to even start to form an opinion here.

    On it’s face I ask since when environmental courts have fuck all to do with zoning? Which leads me to ask how the original zoning effort “failed”, exactly?

    Zoning ordinances were used to order him to remove “unpermitted structures and earthen berms”. Now, in regards to that set of issues did he WIN or did he just ignore what he was told to do?

    Then an environmental court issued an order, OK, well is that court ordering him to follow the previous zoning ruling or is this an entirely fresh case?

    IOW, is that order separate from the original zoning case, or did he lose the original zoning case, ignore that ruling and the city then went out and found a different enforcement mechanism after discovering that the zoning thing had no teeth?

    Did the city lose righteously on the zoning and then launch a second effort against him, basically asking for the same outcome but on “environmental” grounds in a *separate jurisdiction* they thought to be more friendly to their complaints? Or did he ignore the original, toothless, finding and then the city found another way to skin this particular cat?

    And what does any of that have to do with a “paramilitary training ban” that, passed into law though it might be, doesn’t appear to have been leveled against this guy (yet)?

  25. Its strange when its first looked at…. for example…

    First, they are not actually charging him with a ‘crime’ (the paramilitary thing). The law the media bought up is not even being used. And there was no ‘paramilitary training’ being conducted.

    Second, at the core of this they are going after him for ‘civil’ having to do with permitting for ‘structures’. But they go to an ‘environmental’ court that, overall, lacks jurisdiction over permitting for structures. But they use the judge authority as a judge to issue an arrest warrant (e.g. any judge there it turns out can issue an arrest warrant) for a civil matter and not for a criminal matter.

    Third, then they (as in the media mostly) introduce this criminal law thing about ‘paramilitary’ and they aren’t even using that to go after him actually.

    So, after digging into it more this is what appears to have happened:

    It appears this ‘paramilitary’ thing was something the residents thought was going on in a knee jerk reaction fueled by emotion and anger over him simply not giving into their demands to stop having the firing range.

    The place gave him a license for a firing range, but the anti-gun residents didn’t like the firing range so tried to shut it down by invoking the structure permitting thing and when that failed to make him shut it down, the place pulled the firing range license in an attempt to force him to close the firing range and used the structure permitting thing as the justification for a penalty.

    When he did not give into their demands to stop the firing range operation (before the license pull) they took their ‘paramilitary’ complaint to a democrat representative and convinced them and the governor it was happening, a bill got introduced, voted on, passed, and governor signed. Some of the residents invented the ‘paramilitary’ thing to cast a false-danger impression (typical left-wing tactic) because some people used AR-15’s on the range. They amplified their assertion among the others and created a fear among them that fueled emotion of others and before long there is a ‘coalition’ of left-wing anti-gun ‘activists’ trying to drive this forward based upon the ‘paramilitary’ thing that never happened in reality.

    Here’s the ‘paramilitary’ connection > left-wing anti-gun people logic = “AR-15’s are weapons of war therefore anyone using an AR-15 is using a military weapon and if not in the military must be paramilitary therefore using an AR-15 at the range that provides firearms training is engaging in ‘paramilitary training’ ” and they used that logic to gather more anti-gun activists and stir up some other residents and create a false fear that further drives emotion that resulted in eventually the criminal law bill that created a law that is not even being used to prosecute him because there was actually no ‘paramilitary training’ going on.

    So when it comes down to it > left-wing anti-gun people did not like the firing range, stirred others to anger, went after him for the firing range closure using permitting and when that didn’t work created a false-assertion of ‘paramilitary training’ but in the mean time go to a judge to have an arrest warrant issued for a civil matter based in ordinance structure permitting.

    So, how the law works is this > it doesn’t matter what other residents say about him or anything else he did or did not do > the law, due to the way its ‘charged’, can only consider the ‘charge’ which is a civil matter of structure permitting so that needs to be resolved – but, it was used to persecute him to force him to stop the firing range yet on the same ‘farm’ land basis (that he did qualify for by the way) other residents are not made to have permits for (some of) their structures on farm land (including a similar dirt berm on some of those other properties). So the city government permitting thing was used in an attempt to deny him a firing range because the left-wing anti-gunners didn’t like it … thus Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights involved thus the federal civil rights lawsuit.

    • Which still doesn’t explain why there’s a “environmental court” involved.

      ECTs (Environmental Courts and Tribunals) are certainly a thing. I just don’t see how that became involved in any manner. Why would a permitting/zoning case (or defiance of it if that’s what actually happened) being in an ECT?

      • The ECT got involved because they sued him in ECT court claiming environmental laws, basically and briefly overall, were being violated because to have a permit there for a structure means that environment laws were considered and not impacted and thus without a permit he was violating environment laws.

        • The permits being originally granted suggests that impact was considered. Unless those permits were pulled specifically (even if just on paper) for previously unrealized environmental concerns, I don’t see the argument or how it got into an ECT.

          Then again, being a judge in an ECT probably isn’t indicative of being an amazing legal scholar or generally very smart.

        • actually the original permits were first an ‘apartment’ type building. And I think that’s the building in the pic with the article

          permits are on a per-application basis. one permit does not give permission for everything. But the question is did he really need a permit for the other stuff and I’m guessing nope, because there are similar structures permitted on others farm property and they were not required to get a permit and they could not sue him over just the permits thing which is why they resorted to using environmental law in ECT in conjunction with the permits.

        • Ohhh, OK, so they can run to some friendly judge and make claims about the berms being unpermitted and make an environmental claim for lack of impact assessment.

          And if it’s a friendly judge they may allow that claim into court even if it’s total BS.

          That makes more sense.


        • but keep in mind also…. his arrest was ordered under a writ of mittamas which is a court order to confine a person until they comply with a courts order and that was issued for contempt of court (the court ordered him to take the structures down and he didn’t). In other words, technically and legally he sits in prison for contempt of court.

        • correction..

          he sits in prison if arrested. He has not been actually arrested yet. as of a few hours ago he was at home.

          it seems there may be an ‘alternative’ solution in the works by the city and court as they have realized they screwed up trying to rail road him, suddenly after he filed a federal law suit.

  26. This is exactly the kind of thing that inspires the training they outlawed, and the action they fear.

  27. …Undeterred, town representatives including Bent, accompanied by officers from the Sheriff’s Department, reported to Banyai’s residence at 541 Briar Hill Road in West Pawlet. Banyai was not present, and the gate to his property was locked.

    At the gate was a sign that read, “Warning: No trespassing. Written permission needed to enter. Admission with state or federal ID only. Trespass here, die here. Take the chance!”

    Following that, Bent filed a motion seeking the court to issue a Writ of Mittimus for Banyai, which would permit the town to arrest Banyai, keeping him imprisoned until he has removed or demolished all unpermitted structures.

    • “Banyai’s Death Threats Led To This”

      Who threatened Banyai’s life? Have they been caught and punished? (Ha!)

    • “Warning: No trespassing. Written permission needed to enter. Admission with state or federal ID only. Trespass here, die here. Take the chance!”


      ‘words on sign hurt feelings and scary, must go away’

      ‘black rifle hurt feelings and scary, must go away’

      ‘real men and women hurt feelings and scary, must go away

      ‘constitution hurt feelings and scary, must go away’

      ‘children not on deadly drugs and not getting body parts chopped off hurt feelings and scary, must go away’

      ‘pregnancy hurt feelings and scary, must go away’

      (list of things that hurt feelings and scary that must go away for the left wing bullies ….is too long to list… but to add…. one of the left wing anti-gun bullies was sleeping with the assistant DA that dreamed up these words in a sign were really directed at a specific person and was also drinking buddies with the judge)

  28. The owner should have complied & dug a long hole and made an underground firing range, and took down the burns at the same time!

Comments are closed.