Vermont 2nd Amendment and Representative Fred Maslack

Vermont 2nd Amendment and Representative Fred Maslack

This is a discussion on Vermont 2nd Amendment and Representative Fred Maslack within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Lenonthelake
  • 1 Post By Vermontgunowner

Thread: Vermont 2nd Amendment and Representative Fred Maslack

  1. #1
    Member Array Lenonthelake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    50

    Vermont 2nd Amendment and Representative Fred Maslack

    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!
    NH_Esau likes this.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array high pockets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Georgia for now
    Posts
    4,664
    This bill was originally proposed in 2000 - see below

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

    ...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....
    "If you make something idiot proof, someone will make a better idiot."

    - Anon

  3. #3
    Member Array Vermontgunowner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Westminster, Vermont
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by high pockets View Post
    This bill was originally proposed in 2000 - see below

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...n-the-Internet
    Hate to say it but your right. Fred is a good friend of mine and was the most pro-gun legislator when he was in the Vermont House.

  4. #4
    Ex Member Array myrkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    xoxoxox
    Posts
    97
    Too bad it never passed. Every couple of years I read the same story in the news and every time they never checked how old this is. Last one was an intern from Texas thinking she had breaking news

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,568
    .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
    Not true. Alsaka had "Constitutional carry" for years, now Arizona, Wyoming, and I believe Arkansas do as well.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array NH_Esau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    943
    Alaska Constitutional Carry isn't that old - about 10yrs, I think. VT is the only state that has never monkeyed with the 2A.

  7. #7
    Member Array Vermontgunowner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Westminster, Vermont
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by NH_Esau View Post
    Alaska Constitutional Carry isn't that old - about 10yrs, I think. VT is the only state that has never monkeyed with the 2A.
    Your right Vermont has never had any serious anti gun laws. Sometimes there are some legislators that get upity. When they do we generally vote them out of office.
    Google Gun Owners of Vermont.org
    myrkr likes this.

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
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors