A novel approach to the gun ownership !

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pahoo

New member
Forum, I did a search in Snopes and could not confirm any of this. So Mods, if it's out of line, please delete.
Click to expand...
A novel approach to the gun ownership issue...

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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!
Click to expand...

Be Safe !!!
 
So much for those who lost all their guns when their boat went down. I suppose the next thing would be a periodic muster of the militia, which would take place when he specifies who is in the militia. You know, all those little details. There may need to be physicals, innoculations, not to mention some form of proof that you are proficient with your .22 derringer (which might satisify the requirement to be armed).

Maybe he could also do something about how people who don't have children have to pay taxes to support schools.
 
While on the surface, I like the guys initiative to propose something like that. I too, see many concerns with the practical nature of it.
 
Ummm...TFL has had threads about this "legislation" since 2000. I don't think it's going anywhere soon.
 
I disagree with the notion of every citizen being registered with the state, regardless if they are with or without a firearm. It is centralizing control.

But I do like the underlying message he is trying to communicate to people about the purpose of the 2A.
 
Dr Big Bird PhD said:
I disagree with the notion of every citizen being registered with the state, regardless if they are with or without a firearm. It is centralizing control.
Click to expand...

The original Militia Act of 1792 required registration as a member of the militia. This was obviously so the commander would know how many men-at-arms he had as "assets" (although I'm sure they didn't use that term for men-at-arms in 1792).

APPROVED, May 2, 1792.

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't object to being "registered" as a gun owner if I could be certain that the purpose was so the civil authority would know where to reach me if they needed to call out the militia. However, since any registration today is VERY much more likely to be a prelude to confiscation, I oppose registration.
 
The militia act seems more about being able-bodied and of proper age. It doesn't have to necessarily do with owning a firearm

I wouldn't object to being "registered" as a gun owner if I could be certain that the purpose was so the civil authority would know where to reach me if they needed to call out the militia. However, since any registration today is VERY much more likely to be a prelude to confiscation, I oppose registration.
Click to expand...
While I 100% agree with you, I believe modern politics shows us that all laws with "good intentions" will be abused
 
I disagree with the notion of every citizen being registered with the state, regardless if they are with or without a firearm. It is centralizing control.
But I do like the underlying message he is trying to communicate to people about the purpose of the 2A
Click to expand...

+1 on the above. Maslack is an interesting guy, and while I don't necessarily agree with him I understand what he's trying to do.
 
This has been around for some time. I'm sure It would be symbolic and not enforced like the requirement in Kenesaw, GA, for every one to own a gun.
 
I think it's a bit mean-spirited towards those who simply don't want to own guns. I have more than a few friends who don't like or want to own them. They're not antis: guns just aren't their thing. There are lots of people like that.

Legislation like this would only make them resent the folks who supported it in the first place. There would be calls for further restrictions, and look! There's a whole registry of who owns guns! How convenient!

Yech. I generally tend to let people live their way as long as they let me live mine.
 
Not to be the tinfoil hat guy....

But....if all non-gunowners were registered, would that give anyone interested in gathering the information a good idea as to who were gun owners?
 
Stressfire said:
Not to be the tinfoil hat guy....

But....if all non-gunowners were registered, would that give anyone interested in gathering the information a good idea as to who were gun owners?
Click to expand...

It might if the data was complete and accurate. It would be so far from either as to be useless.
 
Earliest reference I could find to this 'story', was a 1999 FreeRebulic.com piece...

The link off that page to their source was a dead end...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top