Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment, from the Vermont Perspective

State Seal of Vermont.

Image via Wikipedia

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!

Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment, from the Vermont Perspective

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Castle Doctrine, Concealed Carry, Gun Control, pro gun, Right to carry, State Laws, State laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment, from the Vermont Perspective

  1. cookie says:

    finally we do have someone in the U.S. government that is not from mars or kenya. I gonna drink some holy water and bless myself. I might even migrate and live in vermont.

  2. Pingback: The Case for the Non-Revolutionary Ownership of Guns by Gary North « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

  3. Pingback: Guest Blog: The Second Amendment « The Thought Mishmash with JTH

  4. Pingback: Another Kid is Shot and our 2nd Amendment Cringes « M Schuett blah blah blah

  5. Pingback: Gun Control and the After Effects « Cayo Buay

  6. Pingback: The global hatred for our Second Amendment | 2nd Amendment, Shooting & Firearms Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s