Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    I LOVE this gun registration plan



    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.

    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.






  2. #2
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Now that's my kinda Rep. . That reminds me of the town I think in Georgia that required all of it's citizens be armed. This guy needs to run for Pres. Maybe we could get rid of the idiots we have in the gubmint now !!!
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.masslive.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/02/please_listen_right_to_vermont.html
    Please listen to Vermont on gun ownership By Frank Sousa February 20, 2010, 2:05PM



    “It won’t happen, but it is nice to dream,” were the words of good friend and Vermont outdoor writer Ed Hall.

    Hall agrees with what he terms “sensible gun registration.”

    I nearly fell off my dunce stool that I sit on during regular intervals, when I read that first paragraph that he backed gun registration. Like many citizens he feels that it could lead to only criminals having guns as nations such as World War II Nazi German, Russia, China, and other nations that operated under strict gun control had used it as a major step in subjugating its citizens.

    Ah, but as I read on, came the dawn over Marblehead, the registration fee would be $500 and would bill those who did not own guns.

    It sounds farfetched but listen to former Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack who studied the Second Amendment to the Constitution as well as Vermont’s own laws.

    In a nutshell, Maslack is saying that a strong militia is ordained in the amendment and thus citizenry under law should be armed.

    But computer research turned up the fact that Maslack made the proposal in 2000 and it did not float.

    The recent web hokey pokey “hit” would have you believe that the measure was just proposed.


    The comments on the recent release of old stuff were intriguing to say the least.

    Let’s use Maslack’s alleged words when he originally proposed the ‘non-gun’ owners registration bill.

    He interpreted the amendment, and best consider it before saying “ridiculous.”

    The Second Amendment. was not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so.

    Attempts to reach the former state rep to verify his 2000 original bill and his comments on the recent fake release have failed. But the thought was so unique as was his interpretation of the Second Amendment that I’ll continue the search for him.

    While the latest web hit is bogus, it certainly revives the original bill proposal and sure provides some new food for thought. A Nordic country not only makes all citizens part of their militia, they are trained once a year and have their weapons in their homes. Oh, yes, their crime rate is among the lowest in the world

    Maslack believed 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’ intent.

    He said originally that Vermont’s Constitution states, “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.”

    He originally indicated said Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”

    Under the Maslack measure, adults who choose not to own a firearms 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,’ he said.

    Chew on this for a moment. Maslack was alleged in the recent hit to declare Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state, and it is currently the only state that allows a mentally fit and law abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

    The result of so many armed law abiding citizens is Vermont having the third lowest crime rate in the nation.

    The recent report attributed to Maslack is also important because it should caution all of us that the net is loaded with bogus things expertly disguised as the real McCoy. I would have bitten for it, except it didn’t ring right.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hp-hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    Just as a point of interest...

    This bill was originally introduced about 10 years ago.
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Still a very intriguing perspective and approach on the issue.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Still a very intriguing perspective and approach on the issue.
    that is the reason i posted it. he has a point to make or made but i thought it was worth the post. i give a crap when it was origionated only the entertainment value it holds



    :celebrate

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    i give a crap when it was origionated only the entertainment value it holds
    Use your tv, it's easier.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    tv is only for sheep

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    That sounds like a good idea at first, but in reality, you want no registration of any type. A registered list of non-gunowners automatically, by default,gives you a registered list of gun owners -everyone not registered. So, be careful what you wish for.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I must say, it was a novel idea.

    Might be a good way to drive out what ever liberal gun control advocates that may be lurking in the state.

  11. #11
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Interesting old factoid. Not feasible or desireable (asNotso clearly pointed out), but very interesting. I like his premise and conclusions.

    It's these types of off the wall random bills that help to keep us centered as a nation (not centered as in Left-Right, but centered as in keeping things in perspective).



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , Montana, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post


    That’s not a bad idea really. Only I would change the rates to a monthly fee (of something like $50/mon.), for non-firearms owners over the age of 18. Have 50% of the proceeds going to a "State Citizens Protection Fund" to help offset the cost of LE protection of its unarmed citizens as well as "legal defense" for armed citizens acting within their rights to defend and protect. The other 50% would go to a "State Armory Fund" to cover the cost of weapons and ammo to enable the state militia to arm its unarmed citizens if or when the need arises.

    After all, if ppl choose to be unarmed then its only right that they should have to pay for the privilege of police protection. It used to be a free service (funded by local taxes) to ride in an ambulance to the hospital. Now it cost several hundred dollars out of pocket to call EMS for a ride. Why not do the same for city and county LE for those that don’t have "armed" insurance.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Yes! The ones who depend on the state for protection, and refuse to protect themselvesshould, indeed, pay for it.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    So what do YOU think the "general welfare" in the COTUS means?

  15. #15
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I like this idea.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    So what do YOU think the "general welfare" in the COTUS means?
    The Constitution, unlike many modern readers, does not conflate "states" with "people". They are distinct entities.

    When COTUS says "general welfare of the united States", it refers specifically to the States as government entities.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    So what do YOU think the "general welfare" in the COTUS means?
    Put it back in it's context and is is perfectly clear:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    It is a PURPOSE for the establishment of the Constitution and government, NOT a POWER! The powers delegated by the people to the government are carefully listed in the sections after the preamble.

    Up until FDR threatened to stack the SCOTUS, it was well understood and accepted that the welfare clause conveyed no power.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    So what do YOU think the "general welfare" in the COTUS means?
    Put it back in it's context and is is perfectly clear:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    It is a PURPOSE for the establishment of the Constitution and government, NOT a POWER! The powers delegated by the people to the government are carefully listed in the sections after the preamble.

    Up until FDR threatened to stack the SCOTUS, it was well understood and accepted that the welfare clause conveyed no power.
    Well expressed! The preamble to the whole constitution is performs a function similar to the words "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.
    But that runs counter to everything that anti's are 'entitled' to....
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

Posting Permissions

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