Own a gun in Vermont or pay a fine!


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!