Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Vermont gun law!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    *
    Vermont's new gun law.*
    *
    ** 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. Vermont.
    *

  2. #2
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    EDA50 wrote:
    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. Vermont.
    I'd like to think that my tax payers dollars are going toward them doing actual police work, such as when someone breaks into my house when no one's home and takes my stuff, or solving murders or something.

    I agree though with this, and I think that our tax payers money should be going toward 'good ole' fashion police work' and not this 'protection' offered to me. If I can't protect myself with a thousand rounds of .40 and a few hundred rounds of 00 buck, then the police aren't going to help me either.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sprinklerguy28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    666

    Post imported post

    Don't forget SCOTUS has ruled the police do not have a duty to protect the individual citizen.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    This "NEW" gun law was submitted back in 1999, and was shut down. Fred Maslack has not been in the Vermont State Legislature for about 10 years now.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    This "NEW" gun law was submitted back in 1999, and was shut down. Fred Maslack has not been in the Vermont State Legislature for about 10 years now.

    I had a feeling. I got this message in an email, and loved it. Do you think Fred would consider running in MI?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    I'll never be on board with something like this. It's no less intrusive than a registration system, mandatory gun locks or safes, and just about any other form of gun control. Besides, don't you think this is effectively a defacto registration of gun owners. Easy enough to find out if ghostrider has guns, just look to see if he is paying his yearly $500.

    As an aside. There was a study done by the Congress in 1989 I believe, on the effectiveness of gun control. It reported that in the early era of this country, the good citizens of VA were required to "bring their piece" to church on Sunday's for drill and practice. If the individual could not afford a gun, then the state would provide one that the person would then have to repay the state for.

    Forcing someone to own a firearm under color of law is not freedom folks.

    Like the man said, "First they came for the trade unionists..."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clio, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    I'll never be on board with something like this. It's no less intrusive than a registration system, mandatory gun locks or safes, and just about any other form of gun control.
    whole heartily agree

    Forcing someone to own a firearm under color of law is not freedom folks.
    i agree but to expect freedom without having to take some responsibility is a little silly to me. i do not feel this is the answer, though i did like the idea lot, i do not use the police for protection, just their other services, as a responsible gun owner.

    "Devery

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    manicdevery wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    I'll never be on board with something like this. It's no less intrusive than a registration system, mandatory gun locks or safes, and just about any other form of gun control.
    whole heartily agree

    Forcing someone to own a firearm under color of law is not freedom folks.
    i agree but to expect freedom without having to take some responsibility is a little silly to me. i do not feel this is the answer, though i did like the idea lot, i do not use the police for protection, just their other services, as a responsible gun owner.

    "Devery
    That brings up a great point that I every once in a while find myself telling someone.

    Laws. All laws, are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Now, mind that when I say, "ultimately", I mean in the utmost extreme. They are most certainly often enforced, and always backed up by "force", but ultimately, that force finds it's way to the point of a gun. Granted there are other methods. Tasers, batons, OC spray, etc... Remember, there are two basic ways of dealing with people.That is, diplomacy, and force. When force is used, it is the greater force that prevails.

    Break down the most simple and basic of infractions, and take it to an extreme. In my example, I use the parking ticket. You decide that you are not accountable to that ticket, or it's authority. You'll not pay anything for it, be it time, labor, property, resources, or money. If they don't use force to enforce that ticket, then your lack of compliance will be the end of it, and nothing will ever happen. But, that isn't the way it works, is it. Wat was initially a $10 fine (okay, I know they aren't that cheap anymore, this is just an example) will eventually increase in price as a incentive/ coercion to pay it in a more timely fashion. That of course matters little to you since you've already decide that it's irrelevant. Eventually, they'll probably issue some sort of warrant or bench warrant for you. I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of the process, but rest assured, they will somehow come for you. Chances are it will be a traffic stop (cop probably ran your plates to see if he needed a reason to pull you over). But you don't submit to their authority, and therefore do not comply with the officers attempts to communicate to you that you pull over to the side of the road so he can arrest you.

    Do you see where this is going folks? Eventually, if you refuse to comply, there will be some form of violent force employed against you. It may be slight, it may be great, but it will be used. In order to submit you, they must always use greater force (of course it is you who is escalating that force. If only you would submit, they wouldn't have to increase the amount or type of force). If you resist, then the force is increased until your ability to use force is overwhelmed by theirs. Often times it's fire, but if you chose to defend yourself/fight back, then chances are they will have to use a gun.

    Granted, this is an extreme, and over the top example. It's so far out past the fringe that I doubt even the fringe would want anything to do with anyone like that. I only use it for illustration. Laws are enforced by violence. Diplomacy is more often used, but make no mistake. That diplomacy is backed up by overwhelming, violent force.

    Most people don't like hearing this. Truth is, they know (deep down inside), that they won't do it. They'll just send (pay) someone else to do their dirty work for them. Remember that next time you feel like shouting, "There ought to be a law...".

    Now think.

    Do you really, truly want to force someone else (neighbor, friend, cousin, sister, mom, etc...) to buy a gun that they don't want? At the point of a gun?

    Are you willing to walk into your daughter's (or anyone Else's) house with two M-4s, and point the first one at her while demanding that she pay for the second.?

    Do you still want it to be a law? If you do, maybe you should be the one to go pick up two M-4s.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    manicdevery wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    I'll never be on board with something like this. It's no less intrusive than a registration system, mandatory gun locks or safes, and just about any other form of gun control.
    whole heartily agree

    Forcing someone to own a firearm under color of law is not freedom folks.
    i agree but to expect freedom without having to take some responsibility is a little silly to me. i do not feel this is the answer, though i did like the idea lot, i do not use the police for protection, just their other services, as a responsible gun owner.

    "Devery
    That brings up a great point that I every once in a while find myself telling someone.

    Laws. All laws, are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Now, mind that when I say, "ultimately", I mean in the utmost extreme. They are most certainly often enforced, and always backed up by "force", but ultimately, that force finds it's way to the point of a gun. Granted there are other methods. Tasers, batons, OC spray, etc... Remember, there are two basic ways of dealing with people.That is, diplomacy, and force. When force is used, it is the greater force that prevails.

    Break down the most simple and basic of infractions, and take it to an extreme. In my example, I use the parking ticket. You decide that you are not accountable to that ticket, or it's authority. You'll not pay anything for it, be it time, labor, property, resources, or money. If they don't use force to enforce that ticket, then your lack of compliance will be the end of it, and nothing will ever happen. But, that isn't the way it works, is it. Wat was initially a $10 fine (okay, I know they aren't that cheap anymore, this is just an example) will eventually increase in price as a incentive/ coercion to pay it in a more timely fashion. That of course matters little to you since you've already decide that it's irrelevant. Eventually, they'll probably issue some sort of warrant or bench warrant for you. I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of the process, but rest assured, they will somehow come for you. Chances are it will be a traffic stop (cop probably ran your plates to see if he needed a reason to pull you over). But you don't submit to their authority, and therefore do not comply with the officers attempts to communicate to you that you pull over to the side of the road so he can arrest you.

    Do you see where this is going folks? Eventually, if you refuse to comply, there will be some form of violent force employed against you. It may be slight, it may be great, but it will be used. In order to submit you, they must always use greater force (of course it is you who is escalating that force. If only you would submit, they wouldn't have to increase the amount or type of force). If you resist, then the force is increased until your ability to use force is overwhelmed by theirs. Often times it's fire, but if you chose to defend yourself/fight back, then chances are they will have to use a gun.

    Granted, this is an extreme, and over the top example. It's so far out past the fringe that I doubt even the fringe would want anything to do with anyone like that. I only use it for illustration. Laws are enforced by violence. Diplomacy is more often used, but make no mistake. That diplomacy is backed up by overwhelming, violent force.

    Most people don't like hearing this. Truth is, they know (deep down inside), that they won't do it. They'll just send (pay) someone else to do their dirty work for them. Remember that next time you feel like shouting, "There ought to be a law...".

    Now think.

    Do you really, truly want to force someone else (neighbor, friend, cousin, sister, mom, etc...) to buy a gun that they don't want? At the point of a gun?

    Are you willing to walk into your daughter's (or anyone Else's) house with two M-4s, and point the first one at her while demanding that she pay for the second.?

    Do you still want it to be a law? If you do, maybe you should be the one to go pick up two M-4s.
    I read this, and tend to think that it is a great start to going in the right direction. Nowhere does it say that they [the government] will force anyone to do anything. There will be a fee for those who choose not to comply. If the city of Troy said they would discount my taxes $500.00 annually if I carried and defended myself, my family and neighbors to the best of my ability, I would gladly oblige. I agree with the hypothesis that cops usually show up AFTER a crime happens. I’m not saying that the LEO’s are necessarily to blame, it is the mere design of the thing. A. Something bad starts to happen. B.The citizen calls LE. C And waits…… Wrong answer.



    So, better answer? Arm people, cut taxes, cut expenses… Less LEO’s. Those who do not want to take their personal protection into their own hands can pay for city services. Where is the problem with this?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post


    Gun Ownership - It's The
    Law In Kennesaw


    By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch

    Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers

    http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home%20Pag e

    3-14-1








    KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

    In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

    The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

    Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

    "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

    In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

    Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

    "It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

    Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

    "You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.

    The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.

    "I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part."

    Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.

    "I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."

    Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.

    Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.

    "The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said.

    According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.

    The city's crime rate continues to be far below other metro Atlanta city's with similar populations, like Decatur. In 1998, Decatur recorded 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents.

    Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity.

    "It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits," he said. "Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them.

    "They figured the gun ownership ordinance would knock that city right off the front pages. They were right."

    Jones said the ensuing publicity surrounding the law has given Kennesaw worldwide name recognition.

    "I have been to Australia and Europe and when I tell people I am from Kennesaw they recognize the name as the place that requires everyone to own a gun," he said.

    But Stephenson said the issue was not publicity-driven but issue-driven.

    "We believed in the right of people to own guns," he said.

    Jones said he has sold 550 copies of a 1994 book about the first-of-its-kind law, "The Law Heard 'Round the World."

    He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.

    "There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."

    Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.

    Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.

    The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law. If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance - probably a fine of about $100.

    Jones said the unusual law has not deterred anyone from moving to Kennesaw.

    "Our population has increased just like everyone's in Georgia in the past 20 years," he said. "The law really hasn't done any harm to the city's growth."

    The city's population in 1998 was recorded at 14,493 - a sharp increase over the 8,936 residents recorded in the 1990 census.

    Cobb Chamber of Commerce president Bill Cooper said odd laws are typically not counted as strike against a city when a business is looking to relocate.

    "These laws don't have laws don't have an impact on a company's decision to move to Cobb County," Cooper said.

    "Many communities have strange laws that are out of date. Businesses look at many factors when relocating, such as quality of life, education, infrastructure and available workforce."

    Bentley said the law actually may have helped business development.

    "Kennesaw is home to more manufacturing businesses than any other Cobb city," he said. "Companies have said they want to be located in conservative areas."

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    The impetus for this came from Vermont's own constitution. Whether we agree with it or not their constitution clearly states that if you don't want to contribute to the protection of the state byowning a gun youwill not be required to, but you need to pay the state to make up the difference.


    http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Article9
    Article 9th. Citizens' rights and duties in the state; bearing arms; taxation

    That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member's proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto, but no part of any person's property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person's own consent, or that of the Representative Body, nor can any person who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if such person will pay such equivalent; nor are the people bound by any law but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good: and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.
    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •