|
|
|||||||
| Register | Forum Rules | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
| Forum Donations | DefensiveCarry Store | DefensiveCarry Gallery | USGO Gallery | Related Links | Forum Help & Extras |
| The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion Discussions of the Second Amendment, Federal State and local legislation related to our gun rights. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 509
![]() |
Sensable gun registration
When it comes to guns, looks like Vermont has more real cowboys than Arizona.
Finally, A Sensible Gun Registration Plan 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 affirming 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 "conscientiously avoid 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 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. ************************************************** I may just move to Vermont ![]() __________________
__________________
'You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats.' - Nancy Pelosi (Quoted 2006) |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Distinguished Member
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Nassau, NY(Long Island)
Posts: 1,791
![]() |
That would be a kick in the teeth for the anti's. I can see them writing that check for $500.00.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Member
![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 446
![]() |
Okay, this happened back in 2000. The plan was NOT Constitutional and did not pass. Maslack isn't even a representative anymore.
Registering non-gun owners is NOT gun registration. I don't know what moron entitled the viral spam mail as such, but they don't seem to understand the difference. Quote:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_04.html
__________________
Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 509
![]() |
Quote:
darn-it,, I knew this was to good to be true, I even checked on snopes, but they didn't have anything on this..........<bummer>
__________________
'You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats.' - Nancy Pelosi (Quoted 2006) |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|