Posted on 11/13/2009 8:41:12 AM PST by mikelets456
Subject: A Novel Idea
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 affirming 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
................
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
(Excerpt) Read more at resistnet.com ...
I like the spirit but it’s bad in practice because registering non-gun-owners is the same as registering those who DO own. Unacceptable.
Found - an unemasculated man with a set of cojones.
Bravo!!
That being said, there are two arguments on which to base this:
1. The Vermont constitution requires those choosing not to bear arms to pay an equivalent; and
2. The benefits of gun ownership include a 'halo' effect - that is, non-gun-owners benefit materially through reduced crime, etc. and should pay some cost for the benefit.
Fair enough. I suppose I can only claim absolute ignorance of Vermont Constitutional law.
SnakeDoc
Not true!
I cannot even find a webpage for Fred Maslack.
If someone can, please post.
There is a town in GA that requires each adult citizen to own a firearm.
Item 2 is explicitly enshrined in the VT constitution, per the article.
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."
You'll have to reconcile that with the Militia Act of 1792, where the very Founding Fathers who wrote & ratified the 2nd Amendment just a year prior, required all militia members (i.e.: all 17-45 year old able-bodied men) to arm themselves to minimal standards at their own cost. Updated to today, that would entail requiring you to buy an M16 + case of ammo, plus standard camping gear. Doubt that's unconstitutional, as the guys who wrote the Constitution implemented the requirement.
I’m liking that!
I’ve always wondered if the NRA would like to team up the disarm the law-abiding crowd and do a joint study of houses with signs that declare the place unarmed and houses that declare that they are armed and see which ones more likely to the victims of crime.
Of course, the results would most likely invalidate the gun-grabber propaganda s they probably wouldn’t go for it.
One other thing – on the registering of non-gun owners – that number is dropping by the hour.
I’ve always wondered if the NRA would like to team up the disarm the law-abiding crowd and do a joint study.
Have houses with signs that declare the place unarmed and houses that declare that they are armed and see which ones more likely to BE the victims of crime.
[that sounds better]
ROFLMAO
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.
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!
Ecellent point!
But it doesn't. It supports it, but has additional conditions that are not addressed, one way or the other, in the 2nd.
The existance of the militia is already regognised in the body of the Constitution before amendments.
With the precedent of 1000 years of the militia in Anglo cultural tradition there was no need to claim the power for the Government - preexisting power to defend the state against threats en mass, just as there is to maintain the peace against individual rascals.
Interesting.
I can definitely see the logic behind the bill. The ‘halo’ effect is real, and requiring all young men to either furnish for defense or assist in the provision of such makes sense to me.
How much would the total cost be for the gun? I’m not a gun owner, but I do have the camping equipment.
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.