Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Firearms related political discussion forum

Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby White Horseradish on Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:09 pm

Subject: Vermont's Gun Laws

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 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 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 have come to kick a** and chew bubblegum." <racks shotgun> "And I'm all out of bubblegum."

--John Nada, "They Live"
User avatar
White Horseradish
 
Posts: 1748 [View]
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: NE Minneapolis

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby White Horseradish on Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:10 pm

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... _bear_arms

Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms

Joanna Mareth | March 27, 2000


Vermonters have long stood behind their right to bear arms, boasting some of the highest rates of gun ownership and the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Currently the only state that allows its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, it may soon be the first to require a permit for the unarmed in its ranks. In what could be the most extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment's tricky syntax yet, a Vermont state legislator recently introduced a bill requiring all unarmed Vermont citizens to pay $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a weapon would be required to register their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number with the state. Those of military age, with the exception of police and members of the armed forces, would be required to pay the $500 fine. Representative Fred Maslack proposed the bill not to encourage Vermonters to protect themselves against crime (Vermont's crime rate is very low), but to demand that citizens do their part in defense of liberty. According to Maslack, "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so."

But defend the state against what? Vermonters, Maslack told me, have a constitutional obligation to respond to "any situation that might arise." Federal tyranny? Yup. Abuse of power by other states? Sure. "There could be a natural disaster that would send thousands of people into the state." Maslack's implication seems to be that in the event of such an influx, Vermonters ought to be able to shoot anyone coming over the border on sight. Good thing New Hampshire's tsunami season is short.

It's true that the Vermont constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and that those persons "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." And Vermont does have a proud history of citizen militias, going back to the days of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. But citizens' armies have not been needed in Vermont since the early days of this country's founding, when they were occasionally called upon to send New York State tax collectors back over the state line. To refresh Vermonters' dormant militia expertise, Maslack has also introduced a bill requiring compulsory military training as a prerequisite for a high school diploma in the state.

More important to Maslack than safeguarding against excesses of government, though, is upholding the letter of the law. With Vermont in the spotlight over gay marriage, Maslack says members of his state should look more carefully at the rights and obligations spelled out in the Constitution. If homosexual couples can sue the state because they are denied the benefits that accompany legal marriage, he says, then surely someone can sue over the unheeded militia mandate. "You can't ignore the duties and invoke the privileges."

Given that Second Amendment enthusiasts speak as much about individual freedom as they do about the joys of hunting, it's unlikely that a bill requiring mandatory gun ownership will find a groundswell of support. (Determining whether everyone possessed a gun would require some form of gun registration, something NRA types staunchly oppose.) Still, all this begs the question: If Vermont recognizes gay marriage, and gays are barred from serving in the military, would Vermonters in same-sex marriages be exempt from militia duty?
"I have come to kick a** and chew bubblegum." <racks shotgun> "And I'm all out of bubblegum."

--John Nada, "They Live"
User avatar
White Horseradish
 
Posts: 1748 [View]
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: NE Minneapolis

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby cobb on Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:12 pm

And this will be the last that you here about it, it will slowly fade away into the sunset.

But I like his angle of attack. 8-)
“Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result”. - Winston Churchill

RIVER VALLEY TRAINING
MN. DPS/BCA approved training organization.

http://www.RiverValleyTraining.com
User avatar
cobb
Moderator
 
Posts: 6643 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:47 am
Location: Mankato area, not in city limits

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby bensdad on Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:42 pm

I'm not sure a tax is in order. That's a little extreme. I do, however, believe that the names and addresses of gun-free people should be published in the newspaper annually. We have a right to know if our neighbors pose a general weakness to the strength/defensibility of the community.
I got nothin'
bensdad
 
Posts: 2113 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Lakeville

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby jgalt on Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:47 pm

bensdad wrote:I'm not sure a tax is in order. That's a little extreme. I do, however, believe that the names and addresses of gun-free people should be published in the newspaper annually. We have a right to know if our neighbors pose a general weakness to the strength/defensibility of the community.


Well if you've got a problem with the tax, you need to take it up with the folks who wrote - and ratified - Vermont's Constitution way back in, well, whenever the heck it was ratified. Definitely pre-1800... Or, I guess you can support an amendment which overrides that portion. But until then, the law is the law - even if it is an ass...
jgalt
 
Posts: 2377 [View]
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Right here...

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby Widge on Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:01 pm

heh
I got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!
User avatar
Widge
 
Posts: 985 [View]
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:22 am
Location: Down in the Boondocks

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby SAM on Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:40 pm

Widge wrote:heh


Took the words right out of my mouth!! :shock:
STAYIN' ALIVE DPS/BCA Approved Instructor Organization
NRA Instructor-Pistol-HFS-PPIH
NRA CRSO
N.D. Concealed and Dangerous Weapons Test Administrator
Mn. FAS Instructor
CSI P2C Instructor
Federal Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004 Trainer
User avatar
SAM
 
Posts: 1262 [View]
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Right smack-dab in the middle of deer f---ing heaven

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby 1911fan on Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:34 pm

Dont be surprised if this thing gets legs there.


Vermont is a VERY independent place. WIth laws written with loopholes on purpose.


For example, I have cousins who teach at Middlebury, and they make a good living, yet, the back side of the house is sheathed with just Tyvek, because until the house is "finished" it is taxed as raw land. That house is a 500K house, but its not done, thus not taxed. Both of the cousins are dead liberal Obamaites, except, they both carry all the time, and were surprised and somewhat offended by the new Pastor who took a some what Pacifist attitude. When you quite literally see bullet holes in homes left over from the conflict of the 1770's, and in some places the results of damage from the French and Indian wars, self defense is a much more personal matter. One reason I believe some areas of the South still have a fresher memory of practical reasons for self defense.
User avatar
1911fan
 
Posts: 6545 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: 35 W and Hwy 10

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby chunkstyle on Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:54 pm

White Horseradish wrote:it's currently the only state
that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.


Alaska has adopted "Vermont Carry", too. Sure, AK issues permits, but that's for carrying in states who will recognize them. When you are up north, you don't need it.
"In his library at Simi Valley, dead Reagan waits dreaming"
User avatar
chunkstyle
 
Posts: 1256 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:38 am
Location: St Paul

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby nyffman on Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:24 am

VT is a different kind of place. My impression of Burlington when we were out there was that it's a liberal hippie type mecca. In 2007, Bratleboro was having such a problem with public nudity that they had to pass an emergency ordinance with a $100 fine for not wearing clothes on the town's main roads. http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... N/70718007 But they are pretty well know for their attitude regarding the 2nd amendment. I'll play devils advocate here and say that I think this idea on registering people who do not own guns is a bad idea. By elimination, they could use the same database some time in the future, or worse yet, the federal govt, which has had little regarded states rights since, at least the time of the Civil War, the Feds could take that database to find out who has guns.
our quarrel is not about the value of freedom per se, but stems from our opinion of our fellow men … a man’s admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him --Alexis de Tocqueville--
User avatar
nyffman
 
Posts: 5176 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby White Horseradish on Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:15 am

Naked people are a problem? Heh. Must be a large senior population there...
"I have come to kick a** and chew bubblegum." <racks shotgun> "And I'm all out of bubblegum."

--John Nada, "They Live"
User avatar
White Horseradish
 
Posts: 1748 [View]
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: NE Minneapolis

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby bstrawse on Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:54 am

I really enjoyed Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire when I lived up in New England. I just could not fathom how Massachusetts got so far off track from the rest of the true "New England" states and their approach to personal freedom.

I'm so glad I don't live in Mass anymore.
b
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 4136 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Vermont is taking an interesting tack...

Postby nyffman on Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:35 am

bstrawse wrote:I'm so glad I don't live in Mass anymore.
b

I believe that is where a lot of the liberals in Burlington and the rest of the state came from.
our quarrel is not about the value of freedom per se, but stems from our opinion of our fellow men … a man’s admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him --Alexis de Tocqueville--
User avatar
nyffman
 
Posts: 5176 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:46 am


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron