Legal Vermont Rep. Maslack Proposes Bill: Register Non Gun Owners And Charge Them $500 Fee - Page 2

listopencil · 07:36 PM

Vermont to Require NON-Gun Owners to Pay a Fine? http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.c...to-pay-a-fine/

HOW ABOUT VERMONT? … register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state

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!

listopencil · 01-06-2013, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Does arming myself with a slingshot count? I'll even join the vanguard when Canada invades...

They have those at Wal Mart. Pretty cheap and fun to shoot. The wrist rocket kind.

BucEyedPea · 01-06-2013, 08:58 PM

So if I carry a squirt gun, I'd be in compliance?

listopencil · 01-06-2013, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

So if I carry a squirt gun, I'd be in compliance?

I think you'd have to fill it with vinegar, or urine or something.

BucEyedPea · 01-06-2013, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

I think you'd have to fill it with vinegar, or urine or something.

Oh, do those kill?

Vinegar would disinfect and clean some people up if I needed to do that.

2bikemike · 01-06-2013, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Awww...I am seeing articles that state that this isn't current news at all.

In fact, Maslack introduced the bill in January 2000, and the proposal quickly died. Maslack has not been a Vermont lawmaker for a decade now.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...n-the-Internet

I was thinking it wasn't current because you can legally carry without a permit in Arizona, Alaska and IIRC Wyoming joined the ranks.

listopencil · 01-06-2013, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Oh, do those kill?

Vinegar would disinfect and clean some people up if I needed to do that.

Wait. I found something. This might work:

listopencil · 01-06-2013, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

I was thinking it wasn't current because you can legally carry without a permit in Arizona, Alaska and IIRC Wyoming joined the ranks.

Yeah. That sucks, I thought the debate would have been very entertaining.

BucEyedPea · 01-06-2013, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Wait. I found something. This might work:

image

Oh Gawd, that's cruel, listo.

listopencil · 01-06-2013, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Oh Gawd, that's cruel, listo.

It'll be fine. Your victim can pick up a bottle of...

01-06-2013, 06:50 PM
listopencil sic semper tyrannis Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: :: In Partibus Infidelium Casino cash: $1081090	URBAN LEGEND/OUTDATED: Vermont Rep. Maslack Proposes Bill: Register Non Gun Owners Vermont to Require NON-Gun Owners to Pay a Fine? http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.c...to-pay-a-fine/ HOW ABOUT VERMONT? … register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state 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! Last edited by listopencil; 01-06-2013 at 07:36 PM.. Reason: It's a repost of an article from years ago
Posts: 21,110

01-06-2013, 08:58 PM	#17
BucEyedPea Frazod Loves Hammy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $48263	So if I carry a squirt gun, I'd be in compliance? __________________ "In government, the scum rises to the top."~ Hayek
Posts: 46,469

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode