In VT rep wants NON gun owners to pay a $500 fee.

[powderman]

Proposed gun ownership bill threatens individual rights    Guns and the right to own guns has been a heated topic for debate recently in the state of Vermont. State Rep. Fred Maslack has proposed a new bill that would require “non-gun owning” citizens of Vermont to register and pay a $500 fee to the state, for not owning a gun.

Many people are irate about the proposed bill, accusing Maslack of trying to interfere with their right to bear arms, as stated by the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right-choice-to bear arms, meaning if a citizen does not want to own a gun, then they are not required to own one. With Maslack’s new bill, a person’s rights would be taken away; a government does not have the right to take away what our forefathers gave us.

Many supporters of the bill argue that it is not only our right to bear arms but our obligation to own a gun and protect yourself and your fellow man. According to a comment made on a blog about the bill on HubPages, user Daniel Townsend wrote “when the government, or criminals, or a foreign power chooses to take that which does not belong to them, then the common man should have means to defend himself.”

However, Mr. Townsend does not acknowledge the fact that the government is already trying to take away something that does not belong to them, the right to choose to own a gun or not.

Vermont’s own constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State,” meaning that citizens in Vermont have the right to decide based on their personal beliefs and preferences if they want to own a gun or not, and they should not be fined for owning or not owning a gun.

Requiring non-gun owners to pay a $500 fee and registering as a non-gun owner would increase the number of guns purchased, and it would highly weigh on people’s decisions on whether or not to buy a gun.

While Vermont’s crime rate is low, requiring people to pay a fine for not owning a gun would increase the crime rate; people would rather own a gun than pay the fine, and not every citizen of Vermont is a trusting, upstanding person. Maslack’s bill fails to identify that.

Requiring everyone to own a gun or pay a fine would increase the number of guns in the state. The state of Vermont is one of few states that does not require registration or a license to own a handgun or a shotgun, and while there are upstanding citizens that can be trusted with a gun, there are also those that should not own a gun because of the things they may do with one, from robbing a store or a bank to murder. Maslack believes that all Vermont citizens are trusting, and therefore his bill is lacking in that sense as well.

This bill should not be passed. Requiring Vermont citizens to register and pay a fine for not owning a gun not only goes against the second amendment, but it also fails to identify that not all people are trusting and safe when it comes to gun use.

As an alternative, the state of Vermont should inform their citizens of the benefits of owning a gun rather than fining them for not; they should educate rather than punish.



http://www.houstonianonline.com/view...0#.UL4K_eSZ9uR 

[jimster]

Never I heard of paying a fee for not having a gun. Did hear of a place in Georgia that has some law that says every house must have one, but I don't think they fined anyone for not having one. Well, states can regulate, either way. I bet if this passed you could get a lawyer and make the state by your a gun...LOL!...one that costs a 2K or more is what I would go for. 
So does this representative only have one ore in the water or what? Sounds kind of silly.

[Mikey]

I don't think it is silly at all, but a damned good idea.  I feel it should be mandatory for every household to have a firearm for defense, unless it violates their religious beliefs, as in the Kennesaw, Georgia law. 
 
If you note, the Constitution does not allow or provide for an internal police forces to defend the rights and freedoms of the individual, but rather protects against it with the right to bear arms - it is the right, the responsibility of the individual to provide for his or her own defense, not the right of the police to establish the rule of order or law.  This translates directly to the ability to own and utilize a firearm in one's own defense.  It is the weak and the liberal who has relegated their (and our)Constitutional freedoms and the protection of these Constitutional freedoms to paid public police forces and who have thereby surrendered their freedoms to a police power.
 
In this regard I think it should be incumbent upon those who seek police protection, rather than their own ability to defend themselves, to pay for public police forces and rather than a $500 fee per person, it should be $500 per year per person. 
 
This is or would be sort of like the opposite to a a right to work law - you have the right to work without being required to make a contribution to the union.  I think it should be a law that you have the right to defend yourself, your rights and liberties, your loved ones and properties, or pay for your protection directly. 

[finisher]

Mandatory payment for protective services... Hmmmm. Not certain, but that sounds just a little bit like this other thing called EXTORTION. Anyone ever heard of that. Of course the local PD could just make a "black" list and not provide service to any non payers.

[Swift One]

That is as stupid as people wanting to high tax ammo.  Dont want a gun in your household?  Your rights say you dont have to have one. Some housholds dont need to have one in them.

[SharonAnne]

Since we have freedom of religion and freedom from  religion I see firearms the same way. I am free to own a firearm and I should be free to not own a firearm.  Although emotionally I favor this law I just cannot rationally support it.           

[Swift One]

Although emotionally I favor this law I just cannot rationally support it.

WOW!!!  If we could just get ALL the politicians to use that exact saying when they come up with these ridiculous things in DC, America would be OK.  Very well put Sharon!!!

[SharonAnne]

the problem is far too many people, and politicians, vote by emotion and not reason. ALL of the gun laws are 'feel good laws'. It makes the politicians 'feel' like they are doing something, when they are not.

Feel good politics, feel good laws do nothing but harm.