Vermont… Purposed Bill to Register Non-Gun Owners!… Unarmed Fee?… Only $500.00!

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 11:02pm.



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 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.


October 22, 2009 - Reposted February 12, 2010 - posted at ResistNet


Tag this page!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 11:02pm.


Joe (not verified) | Sat, 02/27/2010 - 11:45am

Interesting that Mr. Maslack has very little faith in the state's "well regulated" militia, ie. the Vermont National Guard. Maybe it is because they are too busy fighting Mr. Bush's useless wars to actually do what they were designed to do, protect the citizens. Maybe he should be trying to boost the membership in his constitutionally mandated well-regulated militia rather than wasting his time trying to create a mock militia that is unregulated thereby going against the second amendment and defeating his own purpose...idiot! Funny how people cherry pick the Constitution like they cherry pick the Bible. Take what you want, ignore what you don't, so long as it suits your purpose and gets you in the headlines. Try reading the whole damn amendment!

The amendment reads "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security..." and Maslack just left out the "well-regulated" part of that. If he wants us all to abide by the 2nd amendment, then his next step would be to force us to be "well-regulated". This is a giant step towards forced military service and a giant step towards true Socialism.

This guy is a true moron.

Anonymous (not verified) | Tue, 01/25/2011 - 11:28pm

Well-regulated meant to be fully functioning - i.e. a well-regulated clock, or a well-regulated railroad.

The militia is defined in US Code - US Code (Title 10, Sec. 311, U.S.C.) defines the militia: "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." figuring the equal rights amendment, this now includes women and older people - essentially everyone. The National Guard is not the militia.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sun, 01/23/2011 - 12:21pm

Are you a gun owner?

You only speak about the "militia" and nothing about the rest of the 2nd amendment (can't have one without the other). Furthermore, maybe you are not understanding what the term "militia" actually means.

"A military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."

Do you know anyone who is in the Vermont National Guard?

Do you know how much they get paid or the benefits they receive for participation?

In other words, you the average citizen, needs to be committed to and ready to step in when ever needed (oh and they don't pass out the weapons when you show up, you have to bring yours along).

Wake up!

If you are one of many sheep who believes that the "state" (or worse the Feds) is going to take care of you and your family when an intruder enters your home, then you probably believe that the assailant has no intention of harming you or your children and just wants to come in and have tea and talk about the weather.

Maybe you can explain why the crime rate is drastically lower in every single state where citizens exercise their second amendment right to bare arms?

In the future, if you or your family feel threatened, just remember that you can always call "911" and someone will surely be their to save your life!

Anonymous (not verified) | Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:52pm

OK. So even if we are all armed in accordance with the Constitution, how do you propose said large group of armed people be "well-regulated" also in accordance with the Constitution? The state can barely regulate drivers and they presumably have to take a written and practical test, but you would argue most of them know what they are doing? When the constitution was written it was possible for a citizen to acquire and maintain the same types of arms their opponent was likely to possess. Not anymore! And on a separate line of concern, we have a nation absolutely full of overweight and out of shape people. How are they going to last more than a day if they actually had to walk somewhere to fight?

Just a few thoughts.....