Good for Vermont

[yldwill]

.......when conservatives, for a change, set the terms of the debate and define the terms used.

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."

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!









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[phillykev]

I'm going to jump to the conclusion that this is not a genuine effort on his part. Rather, ala the SD bill to require gun ownership, it's an effort to juxtapose the health care bill's requirement to purchase health insurance.

[anonymouse]

Searched for "Fred Maslack":

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/771...t=Fred+Maslack

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...t=Fred+Maslack

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...t=Fred+Maslack

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/770...-gun-laws.html

[indianjack]

This is beautiful.

[phillyshooter]

Not to burst any bubbles because, Vermont is on my short list of place I would move to but, this story is going on 11 years old and I don't believe this guy is even a state rep anymore.

Story from 3/27/00 - http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...t_to_bear_arms

[MWAG]

Yup, Vermont is a great place to be if you're a gun owner. Hell, it's a great place to be even if you're not. In this area, just about everybody shoots in their backyard, and nobody is going to give you funny looks for carrying. This story, however, is old news. I didn't live here at the time this was brought up, but I don't think anybody really expected it to pass.

[West Chester]

I was just up there and they are massive signs right as you enter NY from VT that warn about carrying firearms. I wish i would have taken a picture of one.