Vermont to Require NON-Gun Owners to Pay a Fine?

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by gehrheart, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. gehrheart

    gehrheart
    fidalgo island
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    418
    Vermont to Require NON-Gun Owners to Pay a Fine? « 2012thebigpicture


    Now this would be an interesting twist to things.


    Here’s a fresh approach. Teri Hinkle shared this along with a lot of other info on American National Militia.

    As an aside, Drake and Co. are posting more stuff lately that seems geared to get us all wound up. (Not this particular piece) It doesn’t feel good. I’m going to stop there.

    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!
     
  2. chariot13

    chariot13
    Near Eugene/Springfield
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    595
    Yes its interesting but i also look at it as a reverse registration. By knowing who dont have a gun you in turn know who does have a gun. Lose lose either way. Government needs to mind its own business and leave free people alone.
     
  3. Boomerang

    Boomerang
    Portland area
    Active Member

    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    206
    That's not true.
     
  4. gehrheart

    gehrheart
    fidalgo island
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    418
    I agree, gobmit needs to stay out of both sides! Just found this to be interesting twist on things. And yes, it is still a form of gun registry, which is bad in my thoughts.
     
    chariot13 and (deleted member) like this.
  5. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist
    Oregon
    AK's all day.

    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    6,589
    Best thing I've reas in 3 days!

    When this argument is put out against those in favor of fining guns owners might actually see how asinine their proposal to expose and tax law abiding gun owners really was.
     
  6. Solomon

    Solomon
    Vancouver
    Active Member

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    112
    This isn't liberty, either.
     
  7. WhyteCheddar

    WhyteCheddar
    East of Moscow by the Willamette
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    413
    Just LOL
     
  8. gehrheart

    gehrheart
    fidalgo island
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    418
    No it is certianly NOT!
    Should be no registration on iether side of the fence. I just found it amusing in light of everything else going on.
     
  9. netcarrier

    netcarrier
    Portland, Oregon
    Active Member

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    49
    maybe We should move to Vermont. LOL
     
  10. accessbob

    accessbob
    Molalla, OR
    2A Supporter

    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    794
    I disagree with forcing people to have ObummerCare and I wouild disagree with this as well. Some things just should not be forced.
     
    chariot13 and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page