New Interpretation of 2nd Amendment!!!!!!

[Currently]

Found this on another forum ...

What say ye? Letter writing campaign anyone?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Finally

.... A 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 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.

Makes sense to me!

[Guest HexHead]

I can't imagine it passing, but I like it!

[eapking]

Yeah, this is great. Too bad it won't ever get past the joke stage.

[Guest m14man]

i think he is just trying to make a point that the libs can interpret the militia statement one way, but it can just as easily be turned back on them.

[Guest Muttling]

I can't imagine it passing, but I like it!

+1

It's making a political statement by proposing a law. Will never pass, but this is the way things are done. Just look to the Bloomberg thread.

[macville]

I still don't understand why the lib idiots say, "oh gun carrying was only supposed to be for militias." Okay, fine. Have it your way. Hey turds, I have a one person militia called ME. So since I am my own militia, then I can carry all the firepower I want. Suck on it. Seriously! How stupid is that argument!!!

Matthew

[Volzfan]

I did a google search and this is nearly 10 years old. It apparently didn't catch on.

Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms | The American Prospect

There are a bunch of hits because someone has brought it up and there are many forums wasting their time on old news.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Volzfan

[Currently]

It is still as valid today if not more so ...

[Guest bnutriaz]

Correction to the article.

Alaska also allows carring concealed weapon without a permit.

Coop