It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 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. “
Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by Vitchilo
This is an email that's been circulating since the early 2000s. Fred Maslack hasn't been a Vermont State Rep. since 2004. A shame really, I would love to see that passed.
Originally posted by JustinSee
Thats stupid. And why you feel the need to bash New York at the end I don't know. Its the safest place I have ever lived.
Originally posted by Majic
The Price Of Freedom
I'm all for civil rights, including gun ownership and self-defense, but this seems overreaching.
What next? A fee for not exercising the right of free speech, free religion, or refusing to quarter troops in your home?
I suggest a little more temperance in such matters.
Originally posted by Miraj
I bet you all raged over the idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance (Not stating that as a good idea)
Originally posted by Domo1
I am all fr gun rights, have my CPL etc. but this is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Fining people for not owning guns is ridiculous. To me it's the same as charging someone $500 to own a gun in a liberal state.
Kennesaw's law was a response to Morton Grove, Illinois, which had passed a gun ban earlier that year as a step to reduce crime.
But it also was an affirmation of what gun advocates say is a blanket U.S. constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, for citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun opponents challenge that right and say the language in the Constitution is open to interpretation.
The Kennesaw law has endured as the town's population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.
"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Vitchilo
i am failing to see the logic of making people who dont own guns pay a 500 tax. the state of bernie sanders
says it all.
i am speechless on this one