Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-09-2012, 9:38 PM
ken5714 ken5714 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Conjeo Valley
Posts: 123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default A Novel Approch To The Gun Ownership Issue (Urban Legend, at least from 2001 or older

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. Vermontís 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 _______ you know what. 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!

Last edited by Librarian; 12-09-2012 at 11:13 PM..
  #2  
Old 12-09-2012, 9:54 PM
Nyanman's Avatar
Nyanman Nyanman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 256
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm not sure what to say, honestly.
Sure, saying 'you can't protect yourself or aren't willing to, so file paperwork to that regard' seems fair enough, but what about the people who genuinely can't?
I'd be willing to bet that some people can't necessarily afford a gun (either at this point or ever, depending). Is Virginia going to start buying lots of cheap pistols and subsidizing costs for the poorer residents who want to protect themselves, but can't afford a full price gun, much less the fee?
__________________
I need to think of a clever thing here.
  #3  
Old 12-09-2012, 10:01 PM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,778
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyanman View Post
I'm not sure what to say, honestly.
Sure, saying 'you can't protect yourself or aren't willing to, so file paperwork to that regard' seems fair enough, but what about the people who genuinely can't?
I'd imagine that the actual bill would contain some exemption for those who are not able-bodied. Press summaries of legislative enactments are notoriously sparse on details.

Quote:
I'd be willing to bet that some people can't necessarily afford a gun (either at this point or ever, depending). Is Virginia going to start buying lots of cheap pistols and subsidizing costs for the poorer residents who want to protect themselves, but can't afford a full price gun, much less the fee?
I've always half-seriously felt that if the Sixth Amendment requires one to be provided an attorney free of cost if one cannot afford an attorney, then the Second Amendment should require one to be provided a functional firearm for self-defense and militia service if one cannot afford such a firearm.

I'd also add that the Vermont proposal is not entirely novel. The Second Militia Act of 1792 did basically that but at a national level, though I don't think it required a registry of non-gun owners because basically the only people with exemptions were state and federal government officials.
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
  #4  
Old 12-09-2012, 10:09 PM
Swiss's Avatar
Swiss Swiss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Contra Costa
Posts: 797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This bill proposal occurred over 10 years ago and went nowhere.
  #5  
Old 12-09-2012, 11:09 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,500
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Please do a little background checking at least for dates on these emails circulating.

For instance, this article, with essentially the same content - http://prospect.org/article/vermonts...-not-bear-arms - is from 2001.

There is certainly no current member of the Vermont House of Representatives with a name resembling "Fred Maslack".

And then, since this 'proposal' has no possible influence on California, even if it were real, it should go to Off Topic.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.

Last edited by Librarian; 12-09-2012 at 11:11 PM..
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:28 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.