Fred Maslack of Vermont

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

sanjuro893

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,444
Reaction score
802
Location
Del City
I snoped this and couldn't find anything. Could it be true?:

Finally ..... A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

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 (other) 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.
 

abajaj11

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
31
Location
Tulsa
I snoped this and couldn't find anything. Could it be true?:

Finally ..... A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

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 (other) 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.

Hear, Hear.
Very sensible. Millions of crimes are averted each year because we, the people, arm ourselves (i'm not even going to speculate on how many would-be tyrants have been discouraged by the 80 million gun owners of AMerica, the largest standing "militia" in the world: certainly the Japanese were aware of this). If someone chooses not to arm themselves, and advertises the fact, it will cause an increase in crime, and require more police resources which they can pay for in a "arms ownership subsidization" tax.
-akhilesh
 

Bierhunter

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,230
Reaction score
3
Location
okieville
It's a very interesting concept though.

But, I got to thinking (I try not to do that too much, 'cause it hurts).

By requiring non-gun owners to register/pay a fee, etc...it inadvertently creates a list of gun owners. Anyone not on the non-gun owner list would be considered a gun owner.

That's the scary side effect.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom