Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms

O.K., this seems silly, and possibly even a little absurd, but perhaps that's the intent behind it? An illogical response to the proponents of more restrictive firearms laws?

Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms

Joanna Mareth March 27, 2000

Vermonters have long stood behind their right to bear arms, boasting some of the highest rates of gun ownership and the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Currently the only state that allows its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, it may soon be the first to require a permit for the unarmed in its ranks. In what could be the most extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment's tricky syntax yet, a Vermont state legislator recently introduced a bill requiring all unarmed Vermont citizens to pay $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a weapon would be required to register their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number with the state. Those of military age, with the exception of police and members of the armed forces, would be required to pay the $500 fine. Representative Fred Maslack proposed the bill not to encourage Vermonters to protect themselves against crime (Vermont's crime rate is very low), but to demand that citizens do their part in defense of liberty. According to Maslack, "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so."

Continue reading: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=vermonts_right_not_to_bear_arms

8 comments:

  1. Verrry interesting. but Stoopid?

    I rather like the Swiss approach.

    The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[2] The ammunition are intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the Swiss approach as well. And oddly enough (or perhaps not so odd considering their training), they have murder rates far lower than we have here in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LMAO; i carry my sig P239 on a daily basis. i never leave home without it. In the state of AZ. i have a CCW, which some other states also recognize. This nonsense about protecting the state, or the country. is laughable. Pistols are used for self protection. Rifles are used for hunting. Who or what is a state going to protect themselves from? Mexixo, Canada, our own Government.

    ReplyDelete
  4. RZ, our own govt is the answer, and that was part of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. I will readily admit though that it would be a futile effort since they have far better weapons than the general populace, and even some more exotic weapons that we don't even know about. Watch "Future Weapons" sometime on the electronic and "less than lethal" weapons, then realize that what they are willing to let us see is already 10 or more years out of date.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TB; that being my point in a round about way. ========the trojan horse was let in long ago. it came not with arms, but rather with usury, and a financial system of bebt. we are being colonized by banksters, not by military means. NATO is now acting as their international mercenaries which our own govt. has the most influence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. $500 not to own one?

    How do you spell w-i-n-g-n-u-t?

    ReplyDelete
  7. TomCat, I that's why I said it sounds kind of absurd, on the surface. But, let's reverse the story and say that they want to ban the ownership of all guns, or someone wanting to charge you $500 for owning a gun? If you're a gun control advocate you might say that's just fine with me. But as a gun owner, maybe I'd call the person proposing such a law a wingnut.

    That's why I said it's an illogical response, but I should have made myself clearer by saying it's a response that sounds illogical, but is the same thing the gun control advocates are proposing, only in reverse. Maybe the law maker is trying to make a statement.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What tburcher points out as odd about murder rates in the US and Sweden concerning gun ownership creates a fallacy of association since there are far too many other considerations that would suggest the differences in murder rates. Shasta's comment about Sweden's militia is one many become confused about concerning our second admendment rights. A review of the thinking of writers and philosophers of the time period leading to the second admentment clearly shows that the intent was not one of having a militia but of providing the public masses a way to protect them from despotism of state government.

    ReplyDelete