AND THIS LEGISLATION from Vermont

AND THIS LEGISLATION from Vermont

This is a discussion on AND THIS LEGISLATION from Vermont within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Gun Laws - The way they should be « on: Yesterday at 09:45:28 AM » • Quote Vermont State Rep.Fred Maslack has read the Second ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Fitch

Thread: AND THIS LEGISLATION from Vermont

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Zsnake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    633

    AND THIS LEGISLATION from Vermont

    Gun Laws - The way they should be
    « on: Yesterday at 09:45:28 AM »
    • Quote
    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 ********."

    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. #2
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Sorry, but this first came around in Mar 2000 and never got off the ground.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    11,136
    Crime rate third lowest in the Nation! I wonder if they were beat by California, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois?
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    1,079
    Yep, problem with the internets is that things just keep circling and circling. Here's a contemporary posting from 2000.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,822
    I don't agree fining people that don't own guns anymore than I agree with fining people that don't have medical insurance like ObamaCare does. I don't want to force guns on anybody, but I want everybody that can legally have one to have the opportunity free of hassle and burdensome paperwork. I think AZ hasit figured out - no permit required to carry, but you can get a permit if you want to with the permit requiring what most other states want to see inorder to grant reciprocity.

    If somebody is being threatened or stalked, they need to be able to buy a gun and take it home with them. They can do that in quite a few states now.

    Fitch
    gigamortis likes this.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

  6. #6
    Member Array dylistn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Harriman, TN 37748
    Posts
    166
    Yes this is old, but still relevant. Reading the "Founder's Second Amendment" by Stephan P. Holbrook, the case for requiring gun ownership is far greater than the case for restricting it; At least from a constitutional and historical standpoint. I would not fine non-owners. But I would not fine people who do not chose to use seat-belts.
    PT145, CZ52, PM for carry. Lots of others to look at

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by dylistn View Post
    Yes this is old, but still relevant. Reading the "Founder's Second Amendment" by Stephan P. Holbrook, the case for requiring gun ownership is far greater than the case for restricting it; At least from a constitutional and historical standpoint. I would not fine non-owners. But I would not fine people who do not chose to use seat-belts.
    Technically roads are public and therefore the law applies however the local and state govt want to deem. With firearms that is a right not a privilege and a right can't be controlled or dictated, although there is politics that did this by force and time. We don't have a right to drive the public highways but we do have a right to self defense. It just sucks that people support the dictation and control of rights in our country. They truly don't understand.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Member Array Knapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Port St. John FL
    Posts
    52
    I'm too paranoid. Sounds like a back-door way of finding out who owns guns, and where they live. The proposed fee is interesting, though you can't fine someone for not exercising a right. It would be like fining me for not speaking out against the government, or giving a fine to someone who does not pursue happiness.

    As well as being old, it also includes wrong information:
    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.


    It is not the only state to allow concealed carry without a permit.
    Alaska Statute 11.61.220 allows anyone 21 or older, who may legally carry a firearm to also carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit. The possession of a firearm at courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters will continue to be prohibited. Alaskans may obtain a concealed carry permit if they want reciprocity with other states.

    Alaska just offers a permit for reciprocity purposes.

    Jess
    I'm an artist, and if you give me a tuba I'll bring something out of it.
    - John Lennon

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,822
    The three states where no permit is required to carry:

    Alaska
    Arizona
    Vermont.

    Vermont has had this law for 107 years! Just in case anybody says it will result in blood in the streets, it's nice to be able to note that Vermont has had the least firearm regulation for 107 years and no problem either.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array Okemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    531
    I realize this is an old thread but my 'vermont' search brought it up. Interesting take on fining non gun owners but it'd never fly as Knapper' examples show...you just can't force somebody to be free.

    I live close to the NH border and VT is the only state that NH offers a Non Resident Concealed permit to. Their version of reciprocity.

  11. #11
    Member Array gigamortis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    I don't agree fining people that don't own guns anymore than I agree with fining people that don't have medical insurance like ObamaCare does. I don't want to force guns on anybody, but I want everybody that can legally have one to have the opportunity free of hassle and burdensome paperwork. I think AZ hasit figured out - no permit required to carry, but you can get a permit if you want to with the permit requiring what most other states want to see inorder to grant reciprocity.

    If somebody is being threatened or stalked, they need to be able to buy a gun and take it home with them. They can do that in quite a few states now.

    Fitch
    My thoughts exactly.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Hello from VERMONT!
    By reinhold in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: March 21st, 2010, 08:29 PM
  2. Hello from Vermont
    By d4small in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 04:17 PM
  3. OC in Vermont!
    By Pro2A in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 27th, 2009, 07:53 AM
  4. Greetings from Vermont
    By bruto in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: August 6th, 2007, 04:39 PM
  5. Greetings from Vermont
    By JWM in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 14th, 2005, 11:36 AM

Search tags for this page

fred maslack 2nd amendment
,
fred maslack gun bill
,
fred maslack second amendment
,
fred maslack snopes
,
rep. fred maslack
,
rep. fred maslack second amendment
,
snopes vermont gun law
,

vermont gun laws 2011

,
vermont gun legislation
,
vermont proposed gun law
,
vermont state rep fred maslack has read the second amendment snopes
,
vermont state rep. fred maslack
,

vermont state rep. fred maslack has read the second amendment

,
vermont state rep. fred maslack has read the second amendment to the u.s. constitution
,
vermont state rep. fred maslack second amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.