Posted on 11/13/2009 8:41:12 AM PST by mikelets456
People that need the police the most should pay the most.
Whoa!
Works for me.
Sounds like the same logic that Nancypants is using to justify the forced purchase of health care.
And a website with maps to everyone who doesn’t carry a gun.....
If we are wanting to already make life safer for the criminals then why not take it tot he next logical step....
I’m po. Can I get a firearm foodstamp?
Clever. Constitutionally unjustifiable (the 2nd amendment clearly does not mandate gun ownership; having the right does not mandate exercising the right) — but clever nonetheless.
SnakeDoc
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."
Nanzi Pelosi is making her justification out of whole cloth.
Check the cited language in the state constitution. This couldn’t be applied nationwide, but actually appears justified for Vermont.
Nope, you do not need a weapon to rob tax payers via welfare.
But State constitutions cannot run afoul of the US Constitution.
It would make for an interesting case.
Why not? It’s the same logic that Pelosi is using to pass the healthcare sham. She says people who don’t have healthcare increase the costs for those who do have it, so everyone must be forced to get it.
So, those who don’t have guns increase the costs (crime, no-defense death, etc.) for those who do own guns. Everyone should be forced to have a gun! I’m sure they’d like that argument.
I could use a $500 or $1000 firearm voucher too!
Brilliant!
State Constitutions cannot CONTRADICT the federal constitution — i.e they cannot remove rights granted by the feds. State Constitutions are permitted to add rights and responsibilities not addressed by the feds.
SnakeDoc
Article 9th. Citizens' rights and duties in the state; bearing arms; taxation
That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member's proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto , but no part of any person's property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person's own consent, or that of the Representative Body, nor can any person who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if such person will pay such equivalent; nor are the people bound by any law but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good: and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.
The Vermont state constitution doesn’t run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
The right to keep and bear arms is not abridged in the Vermont constitution.
It is the “privelege” of NOT keeping and bearing arms that is subject to additional tax.
It’s kind of elegant, IMO.
LOL I am a firm believer in Ammo Stamps and have previously posted regarding same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.