Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: New law for California

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    WHAT A GREAT IDEA !!!!!!!!!!!
    Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work


    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

    Vermontwould 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.

    "Americais 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

    [b][size=5][font=Georgia]people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    this does make sense. we do tend to pay for our privledges and have free rights, except for fishing in CA, thats a right we pay for...

    anyway, thisisreasonable i think.its mandatory to sign up for the draft, it should be mandatory to have a gun to defend this country.

    most of the swiss have guns and they, like vermont, have little gun crime.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  3. #3
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Nice!

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    Nice!
    Sounds good on the surface,.....but......

    If they are a non registration state how are they going to enforce it?
    By forcing non gun owners to register isn't it a non defacto way of knowing who has arms then?

    I do agree that the framers wanted everyone to be armed.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote:

    "I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house."
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Reminds me of the similar tactic in the book Molon Labe! where state sales taxes were waived if the purchaser of goods or services was armed. Law abiding citizens who carry weapons are reducing the need for peace officers, so they should reap the benefits.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Awesome.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Sorry guys, this story is about 10 years old.
    But hey , We can dream caint we?

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...t_to_bear_arms

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    As much as I wish every person was willing and able to be armed at all times, I find the above suggestion appalling. It is an infringement of liberty to require someone to do something against their will.

    Involuntary servitude is slavery. Forcing someone to pay a tax for refusing to be a slave is wrong. I would never support any law that initiates force. (Google "nonagression principle" if you aren't familiar with the "initiation of force" concept.)
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Ramon, California, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    As much as I wish every person was willing and able to be armed at all times, I find the above suggestion appalling. It is an infringement of liberty to require someone to do something against their will.

    Involuntary servitude is slavery. Forcing someone to pay a tax for refusing to be a slave is wrong. I would never support any law that initiates force. (Google "nonagression principle" if you aren't familiar with the "initiation of force" concept.)
    I do primarily agree with you, especially with this being handled as a fine for non-gun-owners. But in my opinion receiving some form of a tax break would not be involuntary servitude because it would be an option for any citizen, something an individual could decide for themselves.

    Involuntary servitude, however is required by U.S. government. Selective Service is one example. For those who are not aware, Selective Service is the independent agency responsible for handling the military draft. Personally, if drafted I would be more than happy to go, but that definitely does not speak for every U.S. resident.

    SSS.gov quote:
    If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law.
    Required for legal and illegal persons living in the U.S. (I realize that an illegal alien is very unlikely to register, but nonetheless it is legally required.)

    I see that owning a firearm to be a very different thing from involuntary servitude as mentioned above. It appears to be an option to pay some form of fee in order to not own and I do think it fair to allow non-gun-owners the option to not own a gun, but as I mentioned above I do not believe that a fine is the appropriate method of implementing this. I would like to see some form of tax break for gun owners for a reduction on the requirement for police services (similar to what bigtoe416 mentioned from the book). I do believe it is safe to say that a person bearing arms will (on average) have less of a need for police services than one that does not bear arms. Charging a fee for this, I do see as a slippery slope.

    Food for thought: Perhaps the lack of representation in the government that we currently see today wouldn't be such a problem if more people in the country were armed. Looking at totalitarian governments, the first thing they did was infringe and eventually remove the citizens ability to bear arms. I am not saying that is where the U.S. is heading, that would be a topic for another time, but I think a great encouragement for citizens to own firearms would be a great thing. Perhaps a tax break would qualify.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Cameron wrote:
    But in my opinion receiving some form of a tax break would not be involuntary servitude because it would be an option for any citizen, something an individual could decide for themselves...
    But here's the catch: the income tax is a form of involuntary servitude! In order for me to make a living, I have to pay my pimp (the federal govt). If my pimp then gives me a little of that money back in return for favors, does that make him any less of a pimp? Does it make me any less of a *****?

    The answer is clearly, "no."
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Ramon, California, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Cameron wrote:
    But in my opinion receiving some form of a tax break would not be involuntary servitude because it would be an option for any citizen, something an individual could decide for themselves...
    But here's the catch: the income tax is a form of involuntary servitude! In order for me to make a living, I have to pay my pimp (the federal govt). If my pimp then gives me a little of that money back in return for favors, does that make him any less of a pimp? Does it make me any less of a *****?

    The answer is clearly, "no."
    Good point. You got me there. Based on that definition the U.S. government is more than full of it.

    But that point doesn't really change my opinion regarding the idea of a tax break for gun owners. At least until required taxation is abolished.

Posting Permissions

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