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.