no gun then you pay $500!! Vermont

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sky

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
2,927
Location
Texas
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.

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/you-have-a-constitutional-obligation-to-arm-yourselves/

Now this is a new twist. Yes I think it has "0" chance of becoming law; but certainly gives a new meaning to owning arms.

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
 
Oh now that I like. I like it. A lot.

I like the mentality behind it. Why should non-owners get a free ride, and have their safety and security defended by others, for free?
 
That is asinine. Surely there are much better ways to spend ones time...like maybe proposing bills that are not a joke.

Are VT gun laws really that good that there isn't anything to improve? Serious question, I know their laws are pretty darn good but I don't know many specifics.
 
I've heard of a town in the midwest....maybe oklahoma or kansas? that has a law that each house is required to own a firearm. I don't know if it's enforced or even if it's an urban myth.

I don't agree with it being a requirement and being fined for not owning guns. Theres already enough requierments, laws, and ordinences. I don't know of anyone in this country that's safety or security is provided for free. I believe theres a thing called taxes that is a fee for this service.
 
Sky said:
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.

Reminds me of the town Kennesaw, Georgia, that passed a similar city ordinance. Anti's didn't like it because the crime rate after passage fell dramatically. And they never enforced it. :D
 
zxcvbob said:
Kind of a bass-ackwards method of registration tho', and registration always leads to confiscation eventually.
You raise an excellent point. The bill might be good in terms of demonstrating proper mentality (in some ways but not others) but there are definitely some concerns for those of us who care about our rights.
Like in many cases, government involvement here might provide a means to an end but it will also provide a means to unintended consequences. Keep your government off my back and I'll keep mine off yours. :)
 
shiftyer1 That would be in SE Kansas where they didnt want to pay another county for police services so they stuck with state law enforcement and mandated everyone be armed with a copy of registration at city hall. Even the lil ole ladies liked it!
 
RE: Registration.

That is an EXCELLENT point. If you register all non gun owners how is that effectively different than registering gun owners? Not that it would ever happen...especially with the fine...but still very good point.
 
There is a county in one of the States near The Rockies (name withheld) that has a law on the books that states it is illegal to not be in possession of a firearm. I am trying to decide if I want to live there but can't afford it.
 
I've heard of a town in the midwest....maybe oklahoma or kansas? that has a law that each house is required to own a firearm. I don't know if it's enforced or even if it's an urban myth.

I don't agree with it being a requirement and being fined for not owning guns. Theres already enough requierments, laws, and ordinences. I don't know of anyone in this country that's safety or security is provided for free. I believe theres a thing called taxes that is a fee for this service.

You're thinking of Kennesaw, Georgia, the first town to pass an ordinance requiring residents to own a firearm. It was passed in 1982 in response to Morton Grove, Illinois banning handgun ownership in the city (Morton Grove has since repealed the ban).

The Kennesaw ordinance reads:

"(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

"(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."

In 2000, Virgin, Utah, also passed a mandatory gun ownership ordinance.

Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S. I believe it also has the fewest. Vermont never passed any laws restricting either open or concealed carry, other than in certain locations, so it never had to repeal anything.

The only drawback to the Vermont laws is there is no provision for a permit, so there is no way for a Vermonter to carry in a state that requires one.

I think Maslack's bill is not only foolish (stupid?), it could backfire: Why bring attention to Vermont's gun laws, when they are pretty darn good just as they are? Let those who want the guns have them and leave those who don't alone.
 
Last edited:
Virgin Utah only has 350 residents. Kennesaw, over 3,000.

Virgin, Utah probably is more well known because it is 12 years more recent than the Kennesaw GA law.

It's been a while since I have given any thought to Kennesaw Georgia and it's philisophical opposite, Morton Grove Illinois.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=285&Itemid=37

October 2008 Morton Grove became the first town in the U.S. to pass a flat out ban on the possession of handguns; in response, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a gun law of their own in March of 1982, almost the exact opposite to the Morton Grove ordinance. Kennesaw required every head-of-household to keep at least one firearm and appropriate ammunition in their home. In other words, gun ownership was mandatory except for people who didn’t want to own a gunfor conscientous reasons.

Desite the two communities' demographic differences, the differences in their crime and accidental injuries statistics is telling.

This is just one of the web sites I found by Googling "Morton Grove Firearms" and "Kennesaw Georgia Firearms"

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=285&Itemid=37


With all of these disadvantages working against Kennesaw, how did the two communities actually fare?

Morton Grove’s relatively low crime rate went up by over 15% immediately after enactment of the ban (12% more than surrounding areas) and has held pretty steady at just a tad below the national average ever since. There has been no statistical indication of the handgun ban having any positive effect.

Kennesaw saw in 1982 74% reduction in crime against persons over the previous year. That rate then dropped 45% between 1982 and 1983.

While Morton Grove’s per capita crime rate took a dramatic jump, deviating substantially from regional and national averages, right after passage of their gun ban, Kennesaw’s crime rate did the opposite in an even more dramatic way. After Kennesaw’s gun law was enacted crime dropped dramatically – much faster than federal, state, or local trends – and leveled out well below national averages. In spite of a population increase from 5000 to almost 30,000 during the same period, Kennesaw’s crime rates remain significantly lower than national or area averages. And the people of Kennesaw didn’t have to use their mandated firearms to affect this dramatic change. The simple knowledge on the part of criminals that if they worked in Kennesaw they were choosing to work with an armed prospective victim pool was enough to convince them not to pursue their chosen professions there.

After the enactment of the firearms mandate in 1982, it took 15 years before there was a murder committed with a firearm in the town. As I (the author of the web site Jeff Knox, not Lost Sheep, me quoting from Mr Knox's article) recall, it was the result of two visitors who got into an argument in their motel room. One was insisting that a .25 automatic could not penetrate thick chest muscles like his and the other fellow decided to settle the argument and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were both idiots.

I hope this illuminates the issue (at least from a different angle).

Lost Sheep
 
Last edited:
No, this isn't a town, this is a county. There are 8 cops in the whole county, response time is 45 minutes to 3 hours. As for Liberty, I support everyones right to remain unheeled but they better not cry and whine when the cops arrive in time to draw a chalk mark.
The law isn't enforced but it's there so that no one can sue the county for lack of protection.
The only legislation I support is that politicians are limited to no more than two terms (lifetime), no pensions at all for politicians, the abolishment of all taxes except those that directly support the local community, and The Constitution is the law of the land and not common law.
Since that's a dream, I support fully that every American pull his / her own weight which includes a mandated law that one must do all that is reasonable in ones power to not be a victim. Victims cost money and there are too many professional victims in the current system.
Don't talk to me about Liberty when MTV and welfare cheques is all anyone cares about anymore.
 
The only drawback to the Vermont laws is there is no provision for a permit, so there is no way for a Vermonter to carry in a state that requires one.

Not necessarily. There are a fair number of states that will issue a permit or a non resident permit to somebody that lives in a different state.

It is a negative regarding VT law, though, as some states will only recognize a permit from your state of residence. They kind of screw VT residents there. AK has a permit system even though they don't need one. hint hint VT
 
Will that legislator also propose bills to:
  • Register and fine those who don't declare membership in the church of their choice?
  • Send to jail people who speak to a cop without a warrant?
  • List the names and fines for those who do not express an opinion when free to do so?
  • Punish the folks who don't choose a jury trial.
  • Arrest the people who stay home, when they could have peaceably assembled?
I'm not joking. I want to know when NOT exercising a right became unlawful.
 
No, this isn't a town, this is a county. There are 8 cops in the whole county, response time is 45 minutes to 3 hours. As for Liberty, I support everyones right to remain unheeled but they better not cry and whine when the cops arrive in time to draw a chalk mark.

Would love to know the name of the county. I haven't been able to find a reference to it.

The law isn't enforced but it's there so that no one can sue the county for lack of protection.

Sounds like another unnecessary law. In 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police are not constitutionally obligated to protect an individual from harm.

The only legislation I support is that politicians are limited to no more than two terms (lifetime), no pensions at all for politicians, the abolishment of all taxes except those that directly support the local community, and The Constitution is the law of the land and not common law.

Interesting viewpoint on taxes. I guess you hate things like highways (state and federal), the military (state and federal) and air traffic control (federal), just to name a few. It's a little late to return to the Dark Ages and fiefdoms.

Since that's a dream, I support fully that every American pull his/her own weight which includes a mandated law that one must do all that is reasonable in one's power to not be a victim. Victims cost money and there are too many professional victims in the current system.

Tarring with a rather broad brush, aren't we? Going from a relatively small number of "professional victims" who are a problem to saying the same about all victims is a leap supported neither by fact nor custom.

"Victims cost money." Is this to be followed by, "If they would be victims, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population?"

Don't talk to me about Liberty when MTV and welfare cheques is all anyone cares about anymore.

Hate to break it to you, but that has always been true. The vast majority of people want only bread and circuses and care little for anything that doesn't intrude on their daily lives.
 
This may have some precedent.....

If you are careless and require rescued while mountain climbing out west, the park service will provide the services for your rescue, then send you the bill.

A similar case could be made for law enforcement protection, either make some effort for your own protection or we'll bill you for the service.
 
ants said:
Will that legislator also propose bills to:

Register and fine those who don't declare membership in the church of their choice?
Send to jail people who speak to a cop without a warrant?
List the names and fines for those who do not express an opinion when free to do so?
Punish the folks who don't choose a jury trial.
Arrest the people who stay home, when they could have peaceably assembled?

I'm not joking. I want to know when NOT exercising a right became unlawful.
Some people argue that voting should be mandatory. The results are the same: untrained and unprepared people having influence that they don't even want.
 
I like the mentality behind it. Why should non-owners get a free ride, and have their safety and security defended by others, for free?

It's not defended for free. People pay taxes, which goes to pay for police and other emergency services. Not wanting to own a gun has nothing to do with getting a "free ride".
 
this isnt intend to pass, its intended to send a message....

there is no way to even enforce it......because they dont register guns........so they dont know who doesnt own a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top