Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Vermont The new Holy Land..... (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/vermont-new-holy-land-37018/)

cpttango30 01-17-2011 06:16 PM

Vermont The new Holy Land.....
 
THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!



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 bastards."

CA357 01-17-2011 06:20 PM

It'll never happen, but it's a good statement of the Second Amendment's intent.

BTW, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the
system, but too early to shoot the bastards." is a quote from Claire Wolf's book "The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook". ;)

dnthmn2004 01-17-2011 06:26 PM

Interesting. I don't think that will ever happen, but its interesting none the less. Almost makes me want to move 20 miles north.

Yunus 01-17-2011 06:39 PM

I can just imagine how bad this would backfire when the first idiot who has no clue how to fire a gun decides, I'll just buy a handgun so I don't have to pay the fee, then shoots some innocent kid accidentally because he has no idea how to operate the deadly weapon he just bought.

Also I wonder what this guys stance is on Obamacare. He seems to support forcing citizens to make commercial purchases or be fined. Something that people seem to have taken issue with when it's insurance.

dunerunner 01-17-2011 06:52 PM

Personal responsibility, Yunus. If you drive, you have to learn how and the rules of the road. Same thing applies to weapons, learn the rules and how to use them safely.

Same thing would happen if everyone were required to own a chainsaw!

buckhuntr 01-17-2011 07:08 PM

Something similar has actually been done before, in Kennesaw, Georgia. Kennesaw gun ordinance
Kennesaw did make allowances for objectors, and no penalty was imposed, but it was still the law for every household to maintain a firearm.:D

orangello 01-17-2011 07:24 PM

Ya know, some of them yankees ain't all bad. ;):D

bkt 01-17-2011 07:29 PM

Generally, I'm opposed to requiring people to own firearms. Suddenly, one's right becomes compulsory. That's a form of tyranny.

But if Vermont passes legislation to establish county-wide militia groups and all able-bodied people between 18 and 45 (or whatever the age delimiters are) to participate, then fining people for refusal to participate might make more sense. Of course, opponents would point out that there is no compelling need for a militia when the National Guard and LE exists.

Personally, I would like to see the establishment of county militias across the nation. But I would also like to see a draw-down of the standing military and a pull-out from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as an effort to recall military stationed on bases overseas. (It's a complicated issue, I know. It wouldn't be quick or easy.)

TimL2952 01-17-2011 07:51 PM

I used the National Guard point for my school debate on gun control...Since the National Guard is Government regulated it technically isn't a Militia...a Militia is an organized group of armed civilians led by other armed civilians to protect the welfare of the country.

I think voluntary militia is a great idea...no need to force anyone while we have one of the most advanced and largest armed force on the planet.

Yunus 01-17-2011 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dunerunner (Post 423951)
Personal responsibility, Yunus. If you drive, you have to learn how and the rules of the road. Same thing applies to weapons, learn the rules and how to use them safely.

Same thing would happen if everyone were required to own a chainsaw!

Which is a great reason not to mandate that people own chainsaws :) The driving example is fair only if people are forced to pay a special tax if they don't own a car.

I like this man's intention I just think his methods are more for show and on one hand I applaud that, it's also an exercise in futility.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.