A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

[markheck1]

Snipped this from another forum, thought it was a pretty cool idea. feel free to move if in wrong forum

A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

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

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.

[author unknown]

[PA Traveler]

Wow - that had me going for a minute! LOL

[wa3ra]

Now this line is sig-worthy:

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

[markheck1]

Now this line is sig-worthy:

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

Hehehe, no kiddin

[TheF00L]

Man, wouldn't that be a cruel twist to tweak the anti's, however

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1820

Fred Maslack did, in fact, while a State Representative, introduce such a bill — in 2000. This was during the run up to the vote to allow civil unions and Maslack wanted to be sure residents of Vermont understood the state’s Constitution. Although a Republican, Maslack was, like most Vermont elected officials, that quirky combination of libertarian values. He also supported a bill in 1996 to legalize medical marijuana.

Anyway, he is no longer serving in the State House.

However, the actual wording of Vermont’s Constitution does (in the 1793 version, still the one in use) state the following in various sections:

Article 9. [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 expence 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.

[…]

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State–and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

[…]

§ 59. [Militia]

The inhabitants of this State shall be trained and armed for its defense, under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions, as Congress, agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, and the Legislature of this State, shall direct.

Anyway, currently there is no such bill wending its way through the State House that would require non-gun owners to register with the state. It’s a nice thought, though!

[markheck1]

Man, wouldn't that be a cruel twist to tweak the anti's, however

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1820

Ahh, I thought it might be old, thanks for finding that,
Still a cool discussion, though

[stephpd]

Let's not call it a tax, that sounds so bad.

Better to call it a 'user fee' as those not armed are more likely to be calling the cops, if they get the chance.

[MostlyHarmless]

Not able to find a bill number for this one.

If something sounds too good to be true ...


Jan

[Carnes]

Although I'm not sure I would actually support this kind of legislation, it is ideology like this that have put Vermont on the top of my list of places that I would like to live.

[GunLawyer001]

There's a philosophy among pro-union folks, that anyone who works in a union shop has to pay dues, because they benefit from the union bargaining, even if they don't want to participate.

Well, here in the USA, the fact that some homeowners are armed, and some pedestrians are armed, has a clear deterrent effect of criminals. That's why our rate of criminals invading homes while the occupants are present is a small fraction of England's, and that's why most mass killings here take place in "gun free zones".

So even the non-gun owners here benefit from the effort we put into purchasing guns and practicing in their use. That's why I think that all citizens should have to pay into a fund that will only be used to subsidize civilian gun purchasers. Everybody (seriously, EVERYBODY) kicks in $100 per year, and then when you want to buy a gun, the fund pays some percentage of the cost for you. The fund would buy bulk ammo and make it available for residents. It would replace the user fee for LTCF's.

Everybody benefits from civilian gun ownership, so everyone should pay, no exceptions. Even felons and other prohibited persons, the mentally unwell, even drug addicts; that's only fair, they're most of the reason why we need the guns anyway.

Just a modest proposal.