| Author | Post |
|---|
The Big Guy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 09:54 pm |
|
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.
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 01:12 am |
|
| Alaska also requires no permit to carry a weapon. They do however offer a permit for those who travel to states that recognize other states' permits.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:57 am |
|
As interesting as it sounds, the libertarian in me is appalled by this extreme notion. I am for LESS government regulation, not MORE. I want the government to end restrictions on gun ownership so that I am free to choose whether I want to own a gun and what gun I would choose.
The idea that government will force someone to do something they may not want to do, or to be fined, is the very abuse in government that makes owning a firearm so important to begin with.
|
The Big Guy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 05:34 am |
|
As a libertarian leaning constitutionalist, I wholeheartedly believe less government is better government. However, I also believe the constitution has to be the supreme law of the land. It appears the Constitution of Vermont clearly states that one is to be an armed member of the state militia, and if you choose not to be, you may "buy" your way out of it. I believe that any constitution should spell out what is required of the government, what it may and may not do, not of the people. It should outline your 'rights'. For me, this would need to be changed. The Constitution either federal or state should be obeyed until such a time that it is changed. I am outraged when I hear our legislators and other people speak of how the Constitution is a "living" document. It is only to the extent that our founding fathers left us with a way to modify it if the people deemed it needed. For too long we have ignored the clearly written language of the second amendment and this is why we are in the position we find ourselves in today regarding availing oneself of the right to self defense. This board on which we share our ideas on the right to carry only exists because the Constitutions of the several states and the United States are not followed as written.
|
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 05:45 am |
|
I certainly do appreciate the irony. And once they are all registered, let's publish their names in the paper!
|
Lostlittlerobot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 06:37 am |
|
Wow. That is really cool. Way extreme, but sometimes it takes radical stuff like that to cause change for the better. 3rd lowest in crime? that's cool too. Vegas was declared #4 highest in deadly crimes city from like forbes or something.
Blue card related possibly? hah.
|
Carcharodon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 05:15 pm |
|
timf343 wrote: I am for LESS government regulation, not MORE. I want the government to end restrictions on gun ownership so that I am free to choose whether I want to own a gun and what gun I would choose.
The idea that government will force someone to do something they may not want to do, or to be fined, is the very abuse in government that makes owning a firearm so important to begin with.
I see your point, and in a way agree with it but, this is still a pretty good proposal, at least from my pro-gun standpoint.
|
Soilent Green
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 08:34 am |
|
| Good point made for Vermont. Even though I hold CCW from several states. I personally believe the 2nd Amendment is my right to carry........concealled or open! A CCW is an infringement or restriction on my right to "Bare Arms". I do try to obey the Laws of the land...........But I do find myself speeding from time to time also!
|
Current time is 02:10 am | |
|
