At a recent Warren Select Board hearing, the board had a wide-ranging and thoughtful discussion with two constables about whether the constables should carry guns in the performance of their duties.
No decision was made at the hearing, but great points were made. Select board officials are voted into office to manage municipal matters such as roads, budgets, town policies, culverts, projects, etc.
They are not necessarily qualified – as was pointed out at the select board’s meeting – to undertake the level of evaluation necessary to determine if a volunteer constable is psychologically capable of carrying a firearm when responding on behalf of the town.
Psychological capability aside, how about proficiency with a firearm? Whose job would it be to test constables on their gun safety and proficiency? Vermont has postponed, for two years, enactment of a law requiring that town constables have police-level training.
And on whose shoulders falls the liability for an appointed or elected town constable patrolling or responding with a firearm? And who is liable if an unarmed constable is injured while responding on the town’s behalf because he/she does not have a firearm?
It is no secret that the Vermont State Police are underfunded and understaffed. And it is no secret that property crimes are up throughout The Valley. And it is admirable that some citizen constables are willing to assume the job and the attendant risk.
But before constables are armed in Warren, or in any Valley town, more discussion and planning are required to ensure that this idea is the right one, that it is carried out properly and that decisions about proficiency, competency and temperament are made by people capable of making such assessments.
It is a difficult judgment to ask elected town officials to make – whether a volunteer constable should be armed and, if so, how and why and when and at whose expense?
{loadnavigation}
