Sensible Gun Registration

[warsawdaddy]

> Subject: Finally .... A Sensible Gun Registration 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.
>

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[dimeaday]

this man should hold a higher office.

 

[ClonedSIM]

An excellent thought, but it might have some opposing it for a couple of reasons. Here's the line:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does specify the "right," and not the "mandate." Granted, country security should be a huge issue for any citizen, and I'm sure you wouldn't get many arguments for that, but you would have the people whose religions don't permit violence. That was actually part of one of the initial drafts, but the wording was later removed. I believe it would still apply, though, give the word "right."

How about handicapped individuals, children, people in the country on work visas? How would this apply to them?

Also, who defines the word "arms?" Would it apply to a dagger or sabre of some sort? It did at one point, when firearms weren't as plentiful. Some people may just be more comfortable with a bladed weapon, but should those folks have this fine levied against them as well?

Finally, I could see the "well-regulated militia" portion of the amendment causing trouble. Who will be regulating the militia? The government? Individual citizens? How many militias will exist? Will those with no "arms" be considered deserters and jailed if the militias were called into service?

All that being said, and being a gun-owner myself, I think it's a great idea that could use some further exploration.

 

[Pirate Dirty Jack Rackham]

This guy should have gotten the Nobel peace prize! An armed public is a safer public! Switzerland is a country that has an fully armed public and look how it well it works..Hitler didn't even bother with them!

 

[Saturna]

Yeah, I'm sure history would be different if every person in Poland had had a rifle in 1939 or every person in China/SE Asia during the late 30's.

 

[ClonedSIM]

This guy should have gotten the Nobel peace prize! An armed public is a safer public! Switzerland is a country that has an fully armed public and look how it well it works..Hitler didn't even bother with them!

That's not quite correct. Hitler did attack the Swiss several times during WWII, as did the US. Hitler did lose the air battles he tried to engage, but to my knowledge a ground attack, where an armed citizen may have been useful, wasn't attempted. The Swiss actually made several economic concessions to Germany during the war to remain neutral, and was still hit with trade embargos by both the US and Germany.

I can see your point, though.

 

[DigginThePast]

Funny thing, I have made a similar case as Mr. Maslack when discussing the 2nd. However, this post (the information in the original post) regarding former State Representative Fred Maslack and his bill is about 10 years old. Too bad it didn't gain traction.

 

[jesus]

I have an interesting thing to tell you about registration: Here in my country Mexico the government forbbiden in 1968 to sell any kind of gun fire, from that year do not exist fire arms stores in mexico like another countries, they let some regulated stores to sell rifle cartridges for hunting in limited calibers and units, you must show a registration paper to buy this items, that registration is maded for the army both rifle and guns in specific calibers not in relation with army armament. If you are a hunter must pay for a guns transportation regulated by the army only sport calibers, no semi or automatic rifles, no pistols, no bayonets or swords. For to get that paper you must be in a hunting club regulated by the army too. ALL MAY BE REGISTRATED. You can not carry guns with you any way for your defense in your car or another property only in your home and only 22, 25, 38 guns, no other calibers. We have this month 41 years of regulation and without stores for guns or rifles and what happen with the violence??, look the new papers , how is Mexico, the good people live scared without guns or police in good number to protect us, we are waiting the result of the registration. Do you belive the delicuents are going to register their guns?? only bad people have guns here and we are waiting to be robbed or killed without a gun to protect myself or my family. Thanks.

 

[DigginThePast]

I have an interesting thing to tell you about registration: Here in my country Mexico the government forbbiden in 1968 to sell any kind of gun fire, from that year do not exist fire arms stores in mexico like another countries, they let some regulated stores to sell rifle cartridges for hunting in limited calibers and units, you must show a registration paper to buy this items, that registration is maded for the army both rifle and guns in specific calibers not in relation with army armament. If you are a hunter must pay for a guns transportation regulated by the army only sport calibers, no semi or automatic rifles, no pistols, no bayonets or swords. For to get that paper you must be in a hunting club regulated by the army too. ALL MAY BE REGISTRATED. You can not carry guns with you any way for your defense in your car or another property only in your home and only 22, 25, 38 guns, no other calibers. We have this month 41 years of regulation and without stores for guns or rifles and what happen with the violence??, look the new papers , how is Mexico, the good people live scared without guns or police in good number to protect us, we are waiting the result of the registration. Do you belive the delicuents are going to register their guns?? only bad people have guns here and we are waiting to be robbed or killed without a gun to protect myself or my family. Thanks.

jesus - You sum up the problem. When these laws are enacted, the only people to comply are the same law abiding folks that complied with prior laws. At some point things have to give.

 

[jesus]

You are wright Digging the past, the problem with registration I know not solve anything about insecurity, because that good folks have a little opportunity to defender from bad people which have gun fire, you can have the gunfire only in your home. I believe 41 years of registration and regulation in Mexico is a good example of fail this way to regulate the fire arms from the people with subsequent creation of innocent victims because these have not guns and the bad boys know that. If we see the criminal indice in mexico is much superior than 60 era, I know there are many other factors in this teme, but registration reflect for me only affraid of one government from his people.This and I do not want happen in anothers countries with more fair laws like your but maybe is the beggining of this change. Thanks

 

[pygmy]

jesus spoke of other factors.
When all existing illegal drugs are legalised in the US and elsewhere, then 99% of criminal
activity will disappear.
Write to your elected representative to legalise all drugs.

 

[Tnmountains]

Epic post Jesus and warsawdaddy. It will not be long that we follow Mexico if left to our current governments curriculum.

 

[pygmy]

legalise all, where I live prostitution is legal with many having own flats in suburbs
where they work from.
Income Tax is not too important for us here as we have a flat 10% tax on all goods and services
(except fresh food) and so money folks get legally or illegally still has to be spent on something(attracting 10% tax anyway).

 

[pygmy]

Taxes are withdrawn.
What I was trying to say is that if a prostitute makes a few 1000 a week, she will have to ultimately spend it on something(apart from fresh food) such as breast or genital surgery. The cost of this will net the Gov. 10% tax. The surgeon will charge 10K plust 10%tax=1K+10K totalling 11K.
If the surgeon "pockets" the 1K then the Gov will get its money back when the surgeon buys his next Rolls Royce at 500K(50K tax) and so on.