RSS

Vermont bill would fine citizens for NOT having a firearm

07 Dec
Vermont bill would fine citizens for NOT having a firearm

Vermont Rep. Fred Maslack is proposing that the state not only register non-gun owners but also charge them for not having a gun.  Under Maslack’s proposal Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of traipsing about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

This wouldn’t be the first time in America that such a law was passed.  In Kennesaw, GA, gun ownership has been mandatory since 1982 with a fine of $100 being levied for violators.  In contrast to the hysteria the gun control zealots were expounding at the time, crime was drastically lowered while the population skyrocketed.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

Maslack’s bill in Vermont, atop the $500 fine, would also require non gun owners to register with the state.  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.

Usually, I have been against the government ruling anything has to be mandatory.  But given the fact that Obamacare not only passed but was affirmed by the Supreme Court, I guess the new law of the land allows the government to force people to buy things.  While it may not be right, as of now it is legal, so why not force people (who are not otherwise barred from owning firearms) to exercise their rights and those persons
who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent”?

I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves. Why not let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Isn’t that reasonable? Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense.

If, as a healthy person, I have to foot the bill for the chain smoking, burger inhaling, cardio hating, Fatty McFattensteins of America, why shouldn’t someone who wants to pass the responsibility of their own protection onto the cops pay for that privilege?

Do I expect this legislation in Vermont to go anywhere?  I’m not sure.  When similar bills have come up before in Vermont they haven’t gotten any traction but ever since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare who knows.

If the long lasting effect of Obamacare (besides crippling the health industry) is that mandatory gun ownership legislation sweeps the nation then I will laugh long and hard. Gotta love karma.

About these ads
 
51 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

51 responses to “Vermont bill would fine citizens for NOT having a firearm

  1. Michael Ruoss

    December 7, 2012 at 11:09 am

    O YES i LOVE IT pass it in PA and i will be very HAppy

     
    • Upper Peninsula Michigan

      December 7, 2012 at 11:50 am

      I am against forcing things on people, but like you said if Obamacare can be forced through, if we are forced to pay taxes for things that we aren’t for everyday then why can’t people be forced to purchase a firearm and learn how to use it? The public needs a proper education on firearms, they have been deceived long enough and we gun owners and individuals for gun rights need to do our part better. People need to know the history of firearms and how they helped shape this country the USA, educated people on the proper use of the firearm, how to properly handle and be safe with a firearm.

      When we can do this the United States will become safer immediately.

      Blame a spoon for making yourself fat.

      Our streets are safer when more law abiding citizens have guns, knives, and self defense tools. Just taking guns away from someone will only make our streets less safe. Criminals will still get guns, and people will kill someone with a knife, axe, their fists, sword, rope, chemicals, drunken driving.

      How about we take away cars they kill people! Yea lets do that take away cars they kill people on a daily basis, it has nothing to do with the person behind the wheel.

       
  2. Gunslinger Hobbs

    December 7, 2012 at 11:27 am

    This is not a good thing. It sets a terrible precedent, and although I find the argument that, because Obamacare makes it mandatory to buy something that the law can make you buy anything, it should be on us conservative/libertarian minded individuals to “be the bigger person” and support the causes of individual liberty rather than use the progressive tactics of forced behavioral control via the state apparatus.

    Pro-gun residents in Vermont will either already own a gun or be saving to purchase one soon, while simultaneously respecting the rights of those who choose not to. Likewise, those who choose not to own a gun for whatever reason should respect the law abiding citizen’s right to do so. Forcing someone to purchase something they do not want will only foster resentment for the state legislature and the governor.

    Liberty-minded individuals, both gun owners and non-gun owners, should vehemently oppose people who try to either force someone TO buy or own something, and those who try to make someone UNABLE to buy or own something. That’s what liberty is all about.

     
    • Jarhead1982

      December 8, 2012 at 2:57 am

      They force gun owners to buy permits etc,etc, etc in all but a few states, so getting such a law enacted in one, gives legislative leverage in those other states cause it has been done before, lol.

      Cant wait to hear the antis roar at being infringed upon.

       
    • DavidT

      December 8, 2012 at 5:22 am

      While I don’t like government control of very many things, this gives an opportunity to use their own playbook against them. I forget which rule number it was, but one section of “Rules for Radicals” suggested just this approach, make the enemy adhere to the letter of the rules. Since at least Obama and Hillary are both philosophical disciples of Alinsky, this would just be poetic justice.

       
    • Mike

      December 8, 2012 at 7:34 am

      obamacare set the precedent, not this…

       
    • ExNuke

      December 8, 2012 at 5:54 pm

      While is causes a smile to think about I seriously doubt it has any chance of being passed, it’s more a symbolic gesture. That said, there are too damn many Brady Bunch types that display not only no respect for our rights they actively attempt to remove them, why should we be concerned with their “wishes” (there is no written “right” to be defenseless). By the way, a politician who actively supports violating our Constitutional rights is in direct, flagrant violation of their oath of office and should be impeached.

       
  3. Paula

    December 7, 2012 at 11:27 am

    The only Americans barred from owning firearms should be those currently sitting in jail or an institution for the criminally insane (meaning violent, not simply mentally disturbed as defined by some judge). Aside from those whose very presence in society pose a demonstrated current and direct threat, “shall not be infringed” ought to mean what it says. As for forced purchases, no thank you. But let’s encourage gun ownership and let the bad guys guess.

     
  4. Lee Anthony Nieves (@ScreenwriterNC)

    December 7, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Excellent and I’m all for it!!! Every good Citizen ought to have a weapon for self defense. If you’re too much of a wus and would rather have police protection through 911 as a thug is beating your brain senseless, then you should pay a heavy police tax burden. Hell yeah, I’m for it!!!

     
  5. Pete Sikes

    December 7, 2012 at 11:37 am

    It’s a spoof of State regulations on gun owners now, he’s showing how stupid those laws are…I hope..

     
  6. Brian Kemp

    December 7, 2012 at 11:38 am

    This is one of those political stunts that is meant to catch liberals (who love Obamacare but hate guns) in a trap. Obamacare doesn’t do all that much to address actual health care costs besides expanding the risk pool – this won’t do all that much to address crime.

    While not without precedent…this is a silly law. The persons – who can best determine whether I can keep a firearm in my house or not – are me and the people who live with me.

     
  7. Chip Burgess

    December 7, 2012 at 11:58 am

    I am pro gun and believe everyone should own a firearm but I would never force someone to do something they do not want to. This smack Liberty and freedom in the face. It’s just another example of the government trying to control your life.

     
  8. Tony Oliva

    December 7, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    As some of you have mentioned, while not a spoof per se, I have definitely taken the goose and gander approach to this argument. While, as a Libertarian myself, I don’t believe that the government should be allowed to force us to buy something, now that the court rules that they can, why shouldn’t my taxes be lowered for services I have never needed.

    Perhaps we should look at it like this, if this bill passes then no one will be FORCED to buy a gun. They will simply have to pay for police insurance in the case they might need them in the future.

    If Obamacare, on its second go around before the supreme court gets struck down as unconstitutional, I reserve the right to withdraw the entirety of my goose and gander argument :o)

     
    • Boingus O'Connell

      December 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm

      The government already forces us to buy military protection. Where are the “libertarians” when it comes to people being forced to have to pay for never ending wars in far-off lands for supposed “protection”? It would be far cheaper to get a gun and protect yourself from some nebulous possibility of a terrorist attacking you. Yet libertarians NEVER protest being forced to purchase military protection.

       
      • msalzbrenner

        December 10, 2012 at 3:54 pm

        During his campaign for president the last election, Gary Johnson specifically expressed his lack of support for misguided military operations. His opinion was specifically “Even though we should be “aware” of “possible” threats to our nation. The active use of military should be only be utilized under the direct threat of inevitable danger.” As well he also expressed his approval of the original ideals of the militia. The idea that individuals have the right to bear arms for the purposes of forming militia’s to defend themselves against imminent threats, both foreign AND domestic. That is an example of a “Libertarian” supporting local militia instead of domestic military.

         
  9. armedandsafe

    December 7, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Note that there are specific exemptions in the Kennesaw law:
    (b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

    One would hope similar exemptions are granted in this proposed law. That said, I still am against any government requiring me to purchase anything. I am in favor of having people who abuse our rights pay for their extra draw from the tax base. Makes for confusion, eh? ;)

     
  10. Ben

    December 7, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    As wrong as this is, I find it quite amusing.

     
  11. marquiest

    December 7, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Reblogged this on progressera and commented:
    oh im moving to Vermont

     
  12. Anthony C. Foushi

    December 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    I think this law would be good but i firmly believe that there are some people who have no business owning a firearm. They should need to pass a background check and pass a psychiatric evaluation. I have met some people in my life who just don’t need to be near a gun period.

     
  13. stephen ginther

    December 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    i love it….it would be one of the first…maybe second time since the late 1700′s

     
  14. Mike

    December 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    My god you’re a bitter retard. OBAMACARE PASSED, DEAL WITH IT.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      December 7, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      Classy mike. I expect little else from hate spewing liberal obama-drones like yourself though. You just continue to prove the stereotype true.

       
    • Tom

      December 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm

      To mike and other liberals, we have a right called the 2nd amendment. In my opinion should be completely off limits to government to even try to take it away or restrict it in any way. Firearm sales are through the roof with threat of restriction, (mandate by the people saying hands off!) after all the government belongs to the people, people don’t belong to government. Deal with it.
      Also to remind you, obamacare wasn’t passed in a legitimate way, it was rammed down our throats. The country is still overwhelmingly against it.

       
  15. Prophet

    December 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Mike just shows that it is true that liberalism is a mental disorder.

    So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.

    This makes complete sense and explains the Liberal thinking and behavior that defies any other explanation.

     
  16. B. Goodrich

    December 7, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    >”Vermont Rep. Fred Maslack IS PROPOSING>>>”

    The article to which you refer is three years old.

     
  17. anthonysorace

    December 8, 2012 at 7:00 am

    Can you provide a citation for the claim that non-gun-owners require more police protection? I’ve not seen that argument made before.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      December 8, 2012 at 9:33 am

      Here is a report done, it’s a bit dated (1991) but it breaks down the use of firearms in the determent of crime as well as comparing it to other weapons and non defense by victims. Scroll a little more than half way down until you get to the conclusion and after that you will find the table with the statistical breakdown. You find that unarmed victims are over twice as likely to be injured than armed defenders are.

      It can be extrapolated that if you are a gun owner and have fought off a robbery, murder, rape or assault then you aren’t in need of police protection.

      Whereas if you are unarmed and are robbed, raped or assaulted (being murdered kind of puts an end to you caring) then police are needed.

      http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html

       
      • anthonysorace

        December 8, 2012 at 11:10 am

        Um, from the end of the second paragraph of the conclusion:

        “Yet it must also be noted that the possibility that gun ownership reduces the activity level of confrontation offenders is only an unsubstantiated speculation; gun lobby propaganda has exaggerated the deterrent effect of gun ownership by not discounting for displacement effects that represent no net gain in overall crime reduction.”

        The table below that does, on the surface, seem to support the assertion, but (as noted) makes no attempt to analyze actual crime rates. If it’s simply about displacement (e.g. “You’ve got a gun, so I’m not going to mug you, I’ll just rob your house while you’re out”), there’s no reduction for the need of police protection (and the resulting costs).

        What would be more compelling here is a retrospective study examining crime rates in a given community or population after a change in gun laws affecting them (with reasonable controls on other variables, which rules out at least the casual observations on Kennesaw).

         
    • bullsballs

      December 10, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      While I cannot claim much about national numbers, I can state that I have dissuaded antisocial types to move on with the closing of the action of my Remington 870 12 ga shotgun.
      You know the sound, it is that rack, clack sound in the movies, but with a thoop sound at the end where the shell enters the barrel…
      Living out in the country where I do and police are likely to take 30 minutes, being armed makes more sense than being robbed and killed, but I would pull my nine in town for the same reason…
      So, in my situation, I don’t require as much police intervention.
      CCW people, apply for yours today, then carry!

       
  18. Mike

    December 8, 2012 at 7:39 am

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#section_4

     
  19. Elijah

    December 8, 2012 at 8:29 am

    This has precedent in the National Militia Act of 1792. This is a very good thing, a step closer to having a Constitutional Militia.

     
  20. Ben

    December 8, 2012 at 10:49 am

    I think what this comes down to is that two wrongs don’t make a right. Hilarity? Yes. Right? No.

     
  21. Gun Toting Liberal

    December 10, 2012 at 9:35 am

    I think its funny that Mike says “obamacare passed, deal with it” and the reaction is: Liberals have a mental disorder. You guys ever think that the “that guy is crazy” concept doesn’t really work for anyone. Do you guys realize that there are plenty of people that see gun owners, especially those who are passionate about it (like you guys), as the same way. INCORRECTLY i might add.

    Be careful where you sling mud, it might hit someone thats on your side.

    News flash for all of you that might not get it, because we live in a world with such polar political identities, just because someone wants obamacare doesnt make them a liberal.

    ALSO, just because I am for gun ownership (and I am), doesnt mean im a conservative. Im a liberal. This line of thought that youre either red or blue is the reason why people call eachother crazy for having their beliefs.

    One more thing, to the people that say obamacare is greatly opposed: You couldnt be more wrong. People in the healthcare industry LOVE obamacare. People who are on medicare and medicaid? Guess what, theyll have MORE options, they love obamacare too. Small business owners that were “hung out to dry”? Theyre exempt if they make less than 250,000 a year in PROFITS. Those that are afraid of obamacare have NO idea what it does.

    As to the idiotic comment that obamacare was “shoved down our throats.” You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Healthcare reform was DECADES in the making. Obamacare was discussed in the congress it was passed for over a year. The bill, in its entirety, was available online over a month before it was voted on.

    And should i also mention. It passed, with a majority of congress, and the president signed it.

    You try to tell us it was jammed down our throats. But correct me if im wrong, isnt that the way our system works? We would be living in the US of the late 1800 with children slaving away in factories if we needed a 100% concensus from the people.

    And to anybody that wants to compare obamacare and forced gun ownership:

    GROW UP.

    They are not the same thing, they couldn’t be further apart. If someone goes to the emergency room irresponsibly, they get turned away. If someone uses a gun irresponsibly, people get hurt. Also, for the neo-conservatives who have bought into this rush limbaugh idea of the world that says the government has no job but to protect its people.

    Explain Roads to me. Explain the Police force. Explain Firefighters. Explain the tons of government programs we enjoy every day and don’t realize it. From the low food prices due to government intervention to the fact that a business owner doesn’t have to pay 1,000 dollars in tolls to move his products from the east coast to the west coast.

     
    • Jason

      December 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm

      Well, after reading the article and the first couple posts here, it’s nice to see someone at this site had a decent education. I don’t agree with your pro-gun ownership stance, but I must say that was a great post.

       
  22. Brett Shaff

    December 10, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Seems they’ve always been able to force people to buy clothing…

     
  23. Colin

    December 10, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Sadly, the parallel to this legislation would be for unhealthy Americans to foot their own medical bills without healthy people’s taxes paying for them, and we don’t do that EITHER. So, the right way for that question to be phrased would be for opponents of this legislation to say right back: “If healthy people have to support sick people (which is the way we have collectively decided it should be), why shouldn’t gun owners support the defense of non-gun-owners by the same logic?”

    Also, this is relevant, in case you haven’t seen it yet – a gun ownership indivual mandate actually predates Obamacare: http://www.geneveith.com/2012/04/16/the-founders-individual-mandates/

     
  24. DWN2DV8

    December 10, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    What about a felon? They are not supposed to own guns by law.
    What if it’s a felony that happened 15 years ago, and involved hitting a car, but not causing physical injuries since no one was in it?

     
  25. joe

    December 12, 2012 at 11:11 am

    I would rather see a national carry permit with the same rules/laws for every state.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      December 12, 2012 at 11:13 am

      Joe, I worry about letting the Federal Government get involved in issuing permits. But i do support a national reciprocity akin to that of driver’s licenses.

      But in truth, I would prefer Vermont’s carry permit system to be the standard for the rest of the country.

       
  26. zoebrain

    December 13, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    Does it have to be a firearm, or will a crossbow qualify? How about a water pistol filled with GB? – VX is too hard a nerve gas to make. How about a flamethrower, or a grenade launcher with Botulinus Toxin? Anthrax spores perhaps?

    U-233 is both hard to get, and expensive, so a home-made “backpack nuke” in the subkiloton range – about 10 tons yield – is impractical, but a “dirty bomb” would be an equal deterrent. A larger Pu-239 physics package is easier to make, and efficiency needn’t be high. “Trespassers will be nuked”.

    Something like this would seem ideal:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

     
  27. Brian May

    December 17, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    I think this is very important to point out. Currently in VT the government is NOT ALLOWED to have a running database of the who owns guns or what type of guns they have. By creating a law that requires people to be entered into a database of people who do not have guns, you in essence circumvent the state law and have a list of people who do have guns.

    This is a bad piece of legislation.

     
  28. Brian May

    December 17, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    I should also mention that the state law is the state constitution.

     
  29. Bluff Bunny

    February 11, 2013 at 1:44 am

    If this passed some local newspaper should publish the names and addresses of those who choose to pay the fine and go unarmed….that way the crooks will know who to rob.

     
  30. have a peek at this web-site

    June 28, 2013 at 2:52 am

    I have been surfing on-line greater than three hours today, yet I by no means discovered any fascinating article like yours.

    It is beautiful value sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers
    made good content as you probably did, the web can be much more helpful than ever before.

     
  31. Elvira

    July 13, 2013 at 11:55 pm

    Having read this I believed it was rather informative. I appreciate
    you taking the time and energy to put this article together.

    I once again find myself personally spending a lot of time both reading and leaving comments.
    But so what, it was still worth it!

     
  32. hydrofacereview.net

    August 7, 2013 at 12:20 am

    Hi there, this weekend is good in favor of me, since this moment i am reading this wonderful educational article here at my residence.

     
  33. realestatemichigan

    October 17, 2013 at 4:40 am

    Hi, i’m so cuffed that i found your website I will be sharing this!
    - real estate quotes is a passion of mine and and your “Vermont bill would fine citizens for NOT having a firearm | Gun Owners of America” article is definately good work.

    keep up the great work I’ll surely be back again real soon!

     
  34. edupledge.com

    March 1, 2014 at 8:06 am

    Aw, this was an extremely good post. Taking the time and actual effort to generate a great article… but what can
    I say… I procrastinate a whole lot and don’t seem to
    get anything done.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 352 other followers

%d bloggers like this: