
Note: Unconfirmed, but it’s a wonderful idea, even if not true.
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.
Tags: Government, Politics, second amendment
Bad Behavior has blocked 653 access attempts in the last 7 days.
I realize that you conservatives are a bit behind the times and retrograde but you should note that this bill was introduced in March 2000.
Try keeping up.
I’m betting that 99% of the people in the country have never heard of this.
In that sense, I am keeping up.
Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, or are you merely trying to make yourself feel better?
It should be introduced again. Everyone is responsible for their own protection.
Buy a firearm and learn how to use it. The life you save could be your own or that of a family member.
Another wasted history lesson on a liberal
I never knew about this… thanks James!
That’s great, James! Wish I’d written it, being I’m IN Vermont.
Maybe it’s time to reprise the idea – might get a better hearing, now we have the O Team up to bat.
Good article. Maybe I should send it to my legislature in Kansas. We have open carry, but need a permit to carry concealed.
Our friend Charles seems to think this is common knowledge, but I only heard about it right before I wrote the post.
A well-kept secret.
If we could just get the media to protect our national security interests as well as they have protected this and the global warming crowd’s email scandal, the country would be vastly better off.
Does anyone have the bill # ?