Standing against big government and for the people!

A Novel Idea. Register non-gun owners

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

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 b*******."

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: 2nd, Amendment

Comment

You need to be a member of Patriot Action Network to add comments!

Join Patriot Action Network

Comment by Northern Light on December 27, 2012 at 7:47am: Also, I don't notice or see any statistics about gun safety education in the schools in Vermont.... nor do I see any hunter education facilities within walking distance of the school or IN the school. Vermont has a long way to go...

Comment by Northern Light on December 27, 2012 at 7:45am: Hi, you are wrong about Vermont. Alaska 's laws are clearly more liberal on both carry, purchase, per capital ownership, and manufacture of guns. Vermont is too restrictive on Concealed Carry, Manufacture, and all other matters of gun ownership. They are better than IL, but not better than Alaska. Let us know when you have public carry and domestic manufacture liberalized...

Comment by Phillip T McGrew on February 20, 2011 at 9:11am: A clear and clever mockery of Obama's healthcare debacle. I love it. Sometimes you have to use absurdity to expose the absurd.

Comment by Jeff Geist on May 5, 2010 at 1:20am: This guy is no longer in his state legislature. While I approve of the idea, this legislation stems from 2000 - 10 years ago.

Comment by Greg Badger on January 27, 2010 at 8:41pm: Everyone in Ohio should be required to own a gun save the City of Cleveland. All business should move out of Cleveland. Democrats have ruled there and just about finished it off. Then to cross the border out of Cleveland you have to pay a $100 toll per person per crossing to the State of Ohio. After about 3 months everyone there will be dead. Then the State of Ohio tears it down and makes it an animal refuge for hunting. And the residents of Ohio live happily ever after.

Comment by George M. Cox on December 17, 2009 at 10:53am: This is absolutely great, and I think is the best interpretation of the Second Amendment I have ever seen. I wonder why this was not thought of before?

Comment by Stan Transue on November 5, 2009 at 9:38am: If the registration includes their address, and is available for public inspection, all the criminals in Vermont can focus on those households that will present the least resistance to their trade.

If this isn't Moral Darwinism, nothing is. Defend yourself or die.