Sunday, March 11, 2012

Vermont Proposed Legislation - Pay for Not Owning a Gun




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.
This bizarre nonsense must be a wild bargaining trick. If they propose such outlandish things as this, we'll be happy with the status quo.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

25 comments:

  1. Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar law a while ago, requiring all households to have a gun. There was an exemption for those who objected on grounds of conscience or who were legally disallowed. Remove the fine for not owning a gun, and this proposal in Vermont would make more sense. Make it a statement of principle.

    Often when I hear about something from Vermont, I wonder why the rest of the country can't do the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know why, Greg, because in Vermont there's no Camden or New Orleans.

      Delete
    2. My point is there's more to it than guns. Gun availability, which admittedly is very high in Vermont, is only one factor. The other ones like high unemployment, high violent crime, racial tension, poor education, overtaxed social programs, and others, are all lacking in green Vermont.

      Delete
    3. Racial tension? Are you saying that blacks and Latinos are incapable of owning guns responsibly?

      But compare two cities: Philadelphia and Camden. Both have high crime rates. Both have similar populations. Camden has the higher rate of violent crime per hundred thousand persons, though. On the Pennsylvania side of the river, concealed carry is allowed for anyone who meets the minimum standards. In New Jersey, carry is theoretically allowed, but no one gets issued a license. Now Camden does have a problem with a shrinking police force, but what we see here is evidence that concealed carry does not raise the crime rate.

      Delete
  2. "Often when I hear about something from Vermont, I wonder why the rest of the country can't do the same thing."

    Right. This coming from one of the loud but tiny legion of TGM*, a group who consistently bleatz about individual rightz and complainz about encroaching federalizm--until they see an incredibly fucking stupid idea that, to them, seems like a good one.

    I'm all for paying a $500 fee for not owning a gun. Just as soon as you offer to give up a weekend a month and two weeks every summer for training--without pay. After all, what REAL PATRIOT would dream of charging his nation for the PRIVILEGE of defending it and training for that defense? Oh, and that would also mean that the members of the "militia" would have to be available for inspections and, if called to service, for an extended deployment to the borders of the U.S. to repel the invading chicomislamofascistatheists bent on destroying MurKKKa and it's way life.

    Oh, you weren't thinking along those lines? Tough shit, moron.

    * True Gunzloonz Moronz(c)(tm)(sm)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you have a good idea that you can express in language more mature than a fifth grader, you will let us know, won't you?

      Delete
    2. You are a mentally ill faggot. We have guns to kill people like you.

      Delete
  3. A federal fine for not owning a gun has been in place since The Militia Acts from 1791.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OH, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOES!

    Does that mean that we're all lawbreakers if'n we don't own and keep in good repair a "Brown Bess" or "Kentucky Long Rifle"? Or does it mean that idiotic interpretations of 220 year old statutes are more the rule for teh gunzloonz than the exception?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can look at it this way. If Obama can force you into commerce in the form of health care or fine you for not doing so, then why not fine you for not buying a gun for self protection.

    One is just as un-constitutional as the other.

    Both are "aimed" at self protection, are they not?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Personally I think this law would be funny as hell. It reality, it will not survive an appeal. As much as I agree in my right to bear arms. It is in fact just that. A right. What's next? $500 fine for not voting. Maybe a fine for not practicing a religion. It would be a ridiculous notion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To remind everyone, Vermont has a lot of gun owners already and has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are countries around the world like Israel and Switzerland that view military service as a civic duty and require people to serve. Being a part of the militia doesn't sound like that ridiculous of a demand afterall.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm impressed to be typing this on a laptop, considering we're in the 18th century.

    It takes a certain kind of severe cynicism in the state our country to suggest that people must be armed for a potential domestic uprising. But given these are the same people who want to dismantle our public schools and denounce the government at every turn, I can't say I'm all that surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Texas Colt Carry:

    The notion of universal access to affordable healthcare has gotten completely subsumed in the the Teabaggist arguments about gummint' interference in the right of corporate persons to fuck ALL of us up the ass when in comes to healthcare.

    To compare the two is disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Having access to health care thats affordable is one thing. To be required to purchase it or face a fine or jail time is unacceptable. I have the ability to be self insured. To that end, I dont want to be forced to buy anything, and that includes guns.

    I will buy what fits my needs, to be forced to buy something that does otherwise is just stupid if it does not fit my requirements, gun or health care, trucks, saddles or anything. The govenment hasnt a clue what I need.

    I could care less about left or right, teabaggers or occupy movements. Its when I went to do my taxes, which is a nightmare, to get a warning about the fines I face next year in not particapating in Obama care is absolutely over the top.

    Thats my comparison, thats where I am coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ridiculous grandstanding. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay a fine for keeping my home safe from guns. This is pro-gun extremism run amok.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean that someone is playing politics? How shocking. But if you're incapable of being safe around firearms, I'm sure that an exemption could be crafted for you.

      Delete
  13. " Sorry, but I'm not going to pay a fine for keeping my home safe from guns."

    So you're OK with breaking the law if you disagree with it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Having access to health care thats affordable is one thing. To be required to purchase it or face a fine or jail time is unacceptable. I have the ability to be self insured. To that end, I dont want to be forced to buy anything, and that includes guns."

    Had the Teabaggist and their congressional lapdogs not gutted the bill that was originally presented the "purchase requirement" would not have found it's way into the legislation. You ARE required to pay for police, fire, military and other civil infrastructure--whether you use it or not. Public health should be part of the civil infrastructure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democommie said "Had the Teabaggist and their congressional lapdogs not gutted the bill"

      You are really funny...to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass it to see what's in it"?

      Please explain how they were able to do that since no one read it in its entirety before passage?

      Delete