A novel approach to the gun ownership issue...

[Jimbo]

http://wramsite.com/m/blogpost?id=3567481%3ABlogPost%3A1435917

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second A mendment 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 A mendment 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.

" A merica 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!

[Forever_frost]

I like it. You're using a public service and requiring everyone else to protect you so you should pay. Wasn't that what Obama sold Obamacare as?

[Cooter]

fuckin' love it

[lowfast]

I support this message.

[FreightTrain]

Yep and be honest from the get go. Call it a fucking tax on the panzys.

[Jimbo]

I haven't fact checked it, but this part intrigued me.

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

[talisman]

That's hilarious.

[Jimbo]

That's hilarious.

Agreed, if proposed laws are going to be so extreme as to be comical its nice to see it from both ends of the spectrum.

[LANTIRN]

Alaska and Arizona also have constitutional carry now; Vermont is not the only one but I do believe they were the first.

[silverhatch]

I like it.

[mightyp]

sounds good too me

[David]

This was actually introduced in 2000 I believe and quickly died off.

I don't think Maslack is even in vermont congress anymore.

[Jimbo]

Ill be damned. Thanks David.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20121211/NEWS07/312110021/Decade-old-failed-Vermont-gun-proposal-gains-new-life-on-the-Internet

News
Vermont










The proposal raised eyebrows: A member of the Vermont House of Representatives named Fred Maslack from Poultney introduced a measure that would require all adult Vermonters to either own a gun or pay a yearly $500 fee.

If you surfed the Internet over the past week, you’d swear this was breaking news. It’s been all over Facebook. An Ithaca Journal outdoors columnist wrote about it last week. The gun enthusiast blogosphere was ablaze with the “news.”

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.

But the ideae lives on in a perpetual “Night of the Living Dead” on the Internet. Almost every year since Maslack’s ill-fated gun proposal, people have breathlessly reported on the would-be law as if it were the first time anybody has heard such a thing.

The Ithaca outdoor columnist, Dave Henderson, said he was hoodwinked when he found what appeared to be a new Associated Press story about the Maslack bill on the Internet. He has since learned that either the AP didn’t write the article or the news organization did back in 2000, but not recently. He said he will post a correction in his next column.

The Ithaca Journal, like the Burlington Free Press, is owned by Gannett Co. Inc. It receives Henderson’s column via syndication, much like the Ann Landers column in the Free Press, and it was not edited in house, said Bruce Estes, the managing editor of the Ithaca Journal.

Other online outlets are running with the story. The blog Gunowners of America bills itself as “The only no-compromise pro-gun blog on the Web.” It reported the Maslack story, complete with a tweet about it, over the weekend. The Houstonian online published a column about the Maslack proposal, as if it were new, on Dec. 4.

This is just the latest flurry of Maslack gun law stories. Several blogs carried the story in October 2009, early 2010, off and on in 2011 and in June and November of this year.

Many of the citations on Maslack’s proposal appear to come from the same mysterious publication. For instance, dozens of websites and blogs have this passage, unattributed to anyone
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 could not be reached for comment.

Jeff Soyer, who writes the Vermont-based gun enthusiasts’ blog site Alphecca.com, said he’s exasperated by the eternal life of the Maslack proposal story. He wrote a Dec. 4 blog post pointing out the Maslack story was essentially an urban legend, and not based on current reality.

“It is continually rediscovered by those wishing to believe it could come true,” he said in a subsequent email exchange with the Burlington Free Press. “Some of them will unfortunately grasp at any wishful-thinking news that can support their cause without doing any basic research into it.”

Even if the Maslack proposal were currently under consideration, Soyer said he wouldn’t support it because he doesn’t believe the government should compel people to buy things or pay a fine for not doing so.

Cindy Ellen Hill, a Middlebury lawyer and writer, said she’s well aware the gun law story is very old news, but she is happy that it keeps bubbling back to the surface.

She said the issue raises the question of whether language in the Vermont Constitution requires residents to be ready to serve in a citizen militia if necessary. “Or is that role fulfilled by the State Police and National Guard, with taxpayer money fulfilling Vermonters’ duty to support that protection?” Hill asked.

“As an attorney and passionate devotee of constitutional law and particularly of civil rights, I am personally thrilled that this issue has arisen in the media once again for a very simple reason: It will drive at least some people to actually pick up and read the Vermont Constitution, and engage in public discourse regarding its meaning and its relevancy to the state we live in today,” she wrote, responding to a message left to her via Facebook.

In any event, if you missed the Maslack gun story, don’t worry. It could pop up again.

[2011GT]

I haven't fact checked it, but this part intrigued me.

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

This is not true. Arizona you can conceal or open carry with out a permit. There are other states as well.