Non-gun-owner registration

[Coyote]

Fun e-mail I got today. Without doing too much research, it appears this has been floating around for a few years...

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. Vermonts

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!

I like it.

[jagr]

Lol. I wish this would happen somewhere.

[Jst2fst]

Do it

[rawlins87]

Like

[aforrest4]

Like

[Turbotom09]

Word!

[Brownsfan1]

Thats cool.

[flounder]

Sounds like Switzerland

[attentiongetter92]

Me gusta

[ReconRat]

The basic principle of militia did require mandatory adherence by all males of the required age. Including supplying your own firearm and ammunition. Unfortunately, nothing was ever set to penalize those that did not wish to comply. And only one third to two thirds ever did. This appears to try and remedy that. I would guess that deep searching of colonial news of the era, would have discussion on the very subject.

edit: Interesting history article of colonial militia tactics. A modern difference would be large numbers of regular military among civilians.

Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia - Thoughts on Eighteenth-Century Military Tactics

edit: weird factoid: The headquarters for a colonial militia was the local town beer tavern. A militia really wouldn't show up to drill and train, unless given free beer for showing up. It became a social event, and the entire family joined in.

Edited January 13, 2013 by ReconRat