Vermont's Gun Laws -- You'll like this one

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jcjacobvt

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
120
Vermont's Gun Laws -- You'll like this one

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another take on the 2nd Amendment attack... To Arms! To Arms!!

Well now - isn't that a 180 from the current direction lib's & Uncle
Sam's been taking the nation??

How many news sources would report the data enclosed in the last
sentence?


Subject: Vermont's Gun Laws

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 "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 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.



-----------


Info ref following

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=vermonts_right_not_to_bear_arms Joanna Mareth | March 27, 2000

Word Text Doc from Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Feb 1, 2000
http://www.myteacherpages.com/webpages/JDellaRovere/files/VT Bill Target People Without Guns.doc
 
Last edited:
What a funny mix Vermont is. +1 for an awesome state constitution though.

An armed society is a polite society.
 
States that do not require CCW permits

Two states, Vermont and Alaska,allow a non-felon, at least 16 or 21 years of age respectively, to conceal-carry without requiring a permit as a fundamental right. Alaskan residents may optionally obtain a permit granting reciprocal carry privileges in certain other states, or to be exempted from the NICS background check. Vermont extends the right to carry without requiring a permit to non-residents as well as to residents, but issues no permits to residents that could function to allow reciprocal concealed carry rights for Vermont residents while in other states.
 
The guy is reading the 9th and 15th articles of the VT constitution in a very interesting way.

The 9th says, essentially, that every citizen bears a share of the responsibility for the defense of their individual selves, as well as their community and the state, whether through direct action, or if conscience forbids violence, by paying for a police force and/or militia. Essentially, everyone is expected to be able to serve the defense of the state, should the need arise. This is not mandatory military service, however, as article 15 is unambiguous in stating that not only is RKBA an individual right, but that standing armies are a threat to individual liberty.

In a state where calling the police in the middle of the night will get you a response in as much as an hour and a half, depending on how far you are from the state police barracks and what the weather is like (most towns have no police force, just part time constables), the 9th article basically says "this is a free state, the flip side is you're on your own).

It's interesting to note that VT's constitution (1775) predates the US constitution (1787), and article 15 would likely have been a source for discussion of the 2nd Amendment in 1789.

On the other hand, the MA constitution is the only state constitution I can find that explicity grants RKBA as a collective right, tied to service with the militia ( and this is in the original text, not a modern amendment).

VT was an independent nation from 1775 to 1791, when we joined the US. A lot of us really regret that decision.
 
Interesting and Constitutionally unlikely, this supposedly bill is even more likely to NOT BE REAL given that Fred Maslack isn't a Vermont State Representative.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/lms/legdir/districts.asp

Oh wait, I see this is nearly 10 years old. The bill got nowhere because it wasn't Constitutionally sound. Somebody has yet again been duped into passing on outdated email spam as if it was timely.
 
In a way, the new legislation sounds pretty cool. Kind of thumbing the nose at the opposition. On the other hand, it's just as unconstitutional as the rest of the gun control laws this nation has. Remember we also have the right not to bear arms if we wish.
 
While Vermont has very good gun laws, you should try to be a business or try to build a building in that state. Remember they are a VERY liberal state. All is not roses.
 
Vermont legislation

This bill would be more interesting had it not been introduced in Feb. of 2000.
 
Ok, what are the odds this would actually pass?

My hometown has a mandatory ownership law, with fine print for conscientious objectors, and no police or courts to enforce it. The town down the road tried to pass a law banning the U.N. from conducting business within the city limits. It didn't last.
 
I know this bill is dead and all ,but taxing someone for objection to own a firearm as much as I like it just doesn't seem right.
 
Need Bill Source

Clearly this is an interesting approach. I went to the Vermont Legislature Site to get more information on Representative Fred Maslack and (most importantly) a copy of the bill he proposed.

Apparently he is not a current member of the Vermont Legislature.

Also, I could not find a copy of the bill he proposed.

It appears that this occurred in some past legislative secession and has died. However, it will only remain dead if we allow it to.

Can someone help finding this information
 
Building in Vermont is quite easy in most towns; we have no building permit requirements.

Also it's gun laws are not lax, they are non-existent, other than the federal gun regulations Vermont has no legislation of their own on guns. I believe we are the only such state. Alaska tries to pose as having great gun laws, but they amended their old laws to mirror Vermont's non-existing laws.

I prefer to believe that it is because we are such a liberal state that we still have our freedoms ;)
 
If you register people that dont own guns. you have a list of people with guns though.
 
Building in Vermont is quite easy in most towns; we have no building permit requirements.
Click to expand...


6.5x55swedish, I agree with you on the happy state of affairs with respect to gun rights, but seriously, have you ever heard of Act 250? My understanding is that building a building in Vermont requires the permission of a local Development Review Board and their certification that your project does not offend a series of criteria relating to consistency with neighboring uses, effects on soils potentially usable for agriculture, etc. It is not a simple matter.
 
I like the idea but to be fair there a folks who can't even scrape together $200 to buy a gun sadly enough. So perhaps a state program could be created to allow for zero interest loans up to $500 with a planned payment plan assessed against yearly income. Like older folks on social security as their only source of income paying $20 a month back on the loan. For folks who just can't pay it back, require them to give ten hours a week to state okayed community service programs assessed at minimum wage. So at say $7.20 an hour folks could do community service in advance that the government okays (say feeding the homeless, cleaning up neighborhoods, something that contributes to the states well being). They save up to $500 and then they can buy a gun like a simple Heritage Rough Rider .22lr/.22magnum and they are all done owning the gun while be able to use the rest of the money to secure ammo, adequate training(likely from NRA folks), and gun cleaning supplies, and also be able to go shooting a few times that year to be familiar with the gun.

You don't just let anyone do it though, they have to show a financial hardship to do the community service. Such hardship like being unemployed for six months with little prospect of becoming reemployed soon.

The state benefits from the community service, it benefits from law-abiding folks from being armed, and the resulting reduced crime rate, state sales tax(does Vermont have a state sales tax, I'm in Florida and it's 7%), and not looking like Chicago, Detroit, or the ubran areas of California.
 
Yes I have heard of act 250 ;) I am guessing from your post that you live in Vermont and have all your life. That could be the only possible explanation for you believing that act 250 is troublesome. If you moved out of state your eyes will suddenly be opened top how good Vermonters have it. I did not realize why all the "Flatlanders" wanted to move to Vermont until I lived in Alaska, North Carolina, and then Kentucky. Try remodeling a house in KY. You don't need just 1 building permit, you need hundreds for every little step of the remodel and they cost 20-80 bucks each :(.

I tried replacing an old deck that was attached to our house. Got penalized for taking the rotted deck down without a permit, got charged for the permit I did not get, had to get another permit for the existing footer from the old deck and another to erect the new deck.
Replaced our heating unit, needed a permit, built a fence, needed a permit, remodeled the bathroom, needed one electrical, one plumbing and one regular building permit.

Vermont is rated as the number 1 state for highest taxes; 7% of net income. Well guess what? North Carolina charges sales tax on food, taxes water runn off from your roof, taxes you on the value of your vehicles every year rather than just once when you buy them.

Sorry to drag this thread off course, just making a point.

Now back on topic: How is it possible that a Liberal state that is 234 years old last that long without ever drafting a gun law other than what is in the constitution when the state was formed? And all of these supposedly "Pro gun" conservative states have hundreds of gun regulatory laws on the books? Well my life experience has led me to the conclusion about 10 years ago that Liberalism is not the problem in this country!
 
Last edited:
Very cool... I must admit that it is quite refreshing to hear this sort of logic.

How is it possible that a Liberal state that is 234 years old last that long without ever drafting a gun law other than what is in the constitution when the state was formed? And all of these supposedly "Pro gun" conservative states have hundreds of gun regulatory laws on the books? Well my life experience has led me to the conclusion about 10 years ago that Liberalism is not the problem in this country!
Click to expand...

Grassroots liberalism is rare these days. Modern liberals, or neo-libs are not really liberal at all.... except with their spending practices. Same thing works the other way... neo-cons are not as conservative as they like you to think they are. Heck, these Utah "conservatives" have been spending and taxing us to death lately.

I am proud of Vermont for maintaining their fundamentals despite virtually every other state in the region becoming a nanny state.
 
And when we consider that Gov. Madeleine Kunin did the pre-emption law...
And any towns that attempt to pass gun laws are almost immediately challenged...
It does speak to an underlying current, thats for sure.
 
Joanna Mareth | March 27 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is, what we call in debate, a logical fallacy.

Specifically it's the fallacy of "Questionable Cause."

I could also posit something similar like, "cars are often used in crime, it's because so few people in Japan own and drive personal vehicles that the crime rate there is so low."

Its premise doesn't support its conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work
Replies
6
Views
737
Art Eatman
A
E
  • Locked
  • Poll
So I got this in an email. What do yall think?
Replies
22
Views
1K
Pony Express
P
S
  • Locked
no gun then you pay $500!! Vermont
2 3
Replies
68
Views
2K
Justin
Justin
P
  • Locked
Finally sensible gun registration
Replies
21
Views
983
stchman
stchman
C
  • Locked
Compare Illinois's gun laws to Vermont's
Replies
9
Views
531
Autolycus
A
Back
Top