A New Approach to the Gun Ownership Issue

[JALLEN]

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as
Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.


Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."

Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the b********s."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

[The Marshal]

Where's the "Like" button! :)

[recaffeination]

Forcing people to pay a fee for the privilege of NOT carrying is no worse than charging us a fee for the right to carry.

Hoevever, it' seems like a publicity stunt. Like that town in Georgia that required homeowners to have a gun.

[The Annoyed Man]

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as
Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.


Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."

Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... along with Arizona, it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the b********s."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

There, fixed it for you. Arizona does not require a CCW permit either. They have one you can get in case you need reciprocity with some other state, but you don't need one to carry concealed (or in the open) inside of Arizona. It's called "Constitutional Carry," and we badly need that here in Texas.

[Jumping Frog]

That is a really old post - like several years old, I believe.

[JALLEN]

Since I posted this, I have discovered the bill was introduced in 2001 and went nowhere, that Maslack is no longer a Representative, and that Vermont is no longer the only state where no permit is required, Arizona having gone that way. Is there a trend?

[JALLEN]

That is a really old post - like several years old, I believe.

See above.

Some of us are at an age where we are no longer like Mark Twain who could remember everything that every happened to him and a lot more besides. I'm getting to where it's only "a lot more besides!"


But it does warm the cockles of your heart on an otherwise wintery day... not here in Coronado, of course, where it is 70 degrees clear skies, visibility unrestricted as usual.

[sjfcontrol]

Hmmm...

Not that it matters now, but it seems to me that "registering" everyone who doesn't have a gun, would pretty much determine who DID have a gun, too. (For the purpose of eventual confiscation.)

Also, would you need to "prove" that you had a gun in order to avoid the penalty?

Just my initial thoughts on the idea.

[tommyg]

I used to ride motorcycles in vermont it is lovely country..You better have a gun because there are a lot
of people there running from the law... Vermont is the hardest state in the country to extradite from
Also there a lot of vicious 4 legged critters that you might have to defend yourself from