New law for California

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

people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

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_politics_in_Switzerland

imported post

Nice!

imported post

mjones wrote:

Nice!

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Awesome.

imported post

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

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

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.)

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.)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

Click to expand...

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 whore?

The answer is clearly, "no."

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...

Click to expand...

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 whore?

The answer is clearly, "no."

Click to expand...

Good point. You got me there. :banghead: Based on that definition the U.S. government is more than full of it. :cuss:

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.