Subject: THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!
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!