• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

BerettaFS92Custom

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
232
Location
mid south but not madison , , USA
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.
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

Now that's my kinda Rep. :D . 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. :D Maybe we could get rid of the idiots we have in the gubmint now !!!
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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.
 

Notso

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
432
Location
Laveen, Arizona, USA
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.
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
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).
 

Basic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, Montana, USA
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.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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..."
 
Top