Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Vermont's Answer to Gun Control:

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
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.

I heard about this. Good deal. Same category as making everybody buy health insurance or pay a penalty...

And, not sure about VT but VA had a mandate for some time that every man be armed at all times...

Vahunter wrote:Vermont's Answer to Gun Control:

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
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.

see now this blows my mind, they elect bernie sanders to the senate? a socialist? and then they have the least gun control? what gives here?

zephyp wrote:I heard about this. Good deal. Same category as making everybody buy health insurance or pay a penalty...

And, not sure about VT but VA had a mandate for some time that every man be armed at all times...

Yes and no. The constitutions, US and State, do aggregate some things and put them under common purview. Common defence is one of them, health care is not. Look at the differences here. From the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Rights governments are instituted to defend are listed in that order for a reason. This is a big generalization, but... Your right to life overrides my right to liberty when my liberty significantly impacts your life. For example (using firearms since that is the focus of this forum, but it applies elsewhere too), I can't shoot my rifle off of my balcony because there is no reasonably safe direction to do so. It is extremely likely that I would harm someone else if I did so. Restricting my liberty here makes sense. You can continue to work it our from here I trust.

This raises two problems, which get us into all kinds of trouble. First is when I don't like your actions and the second is thinking law can clearly define it.

I shoot on private property a lot and one property in particular one of the neighbours didn't like it. So they called the Sheriff every time we were out there. The Sheriff comes out and just checks to see if we are shooting safely. Two minutes and their gone. At some point they either quite coming out or the neighbour gave up. Just because they don't like what I'm doing doesn't give the government the ability to restrict my liberty. Think about it, but we do this all the time! Hannity once (to my knowledge) when arguing with a Libertarian (caller) that drugs should be illegal because he doesn't his children to see people using them. I could care less about drugs, but where does it end? Us "right-wing, nut job, gun owners" love to point out that those leftest just don't like guns and that is a poor excuse to restrict them, but what don't we like that we push to restrict? If your intellectually honest, you will want to be logically consistent. This is exactly why I quit being a Republican and became a Libertarian. That and I realized they just talk about free markets, liberty, gun ownership, etc. When push comes to shove, they won't actually fight for it.

The second is that law is capable of defining every possible aspect. Laughable. Any limits you put on something are naturally arbitrary. Shooting within X distance of a development. Number of rounds you can carry in a gun. Length of barrel. Max size of bore. Materials used in bullet construction. I can go on and on, but the fact is none of these things matter. It doesn't matter how compliant with the law I am, if I harm someone else with my gun, I must make restitution. If I am negligent, than criminally liable too. The law can't see every foreseeable situation. We laugh at the antis when they are this stupid with their gun laws. There is a reason it was called Common Law. We inherited this from the British (read Blackstone and Tucker) and tweaked things and I realize we don't have this any more, but look at the trouble it causes us! We have replaced common sense with what is legal. If it isn't illegal, it must be morally and ethically ok...right? NO! It is not possible to define everything in the law. Attempting to do so destroys it. The "law" is now so large, so convoluted, so contradictory that we make fun of it. How are we suppose to create a good and peaceable society when we think our laws are a joke?

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?" -- Federalist 62

Enough background.

Common defence was allocated to the government because it was recognized there are threats to liberty far greater than just one individual can withstand. The militia system existed for this end. Militias can be viewed as an efficient way of managing surge capacity. This is essentially what the Swiss did in WW2. They had boarder guards which took tours of duty much greater than the standard "militia" member. Full time positions lasting 2 years if I recall correctly. Essentially a standing army paid for with tax dollars. It was kept just large enough for its primary task though. The boarder guards were to slow any invading force down sufficiently (they also pre-wired bridges with explosives! Now that is a pair of brass ones!) so the larger, main militia force could be assembled. The Swiss avoided the Belgians problem of storing arms in a central location, which allowed the Germans to capture the arms and essentially defeat a militia army easily. In the event of a invasion, the militia would return home, pick up their arms and report for duty. Instead of having a huge army and massive taxes to pay for it, they trained everyone and most of the time the militia was makings good, providing services, farming, etc. Efficient surge capacity.

Besides if your standing army is too large and consequently the taxes to pay for it are also large, there is a desire to get something for you money so to speak. Definitely not what the founding fathers wanted.

One of the central problems to work in this sort of militia army system is arms. Who buys them, who stores them, who maintains them, etc. In early America, arms were pretty simple to own and maintain. Private citizens owned artillery and ships too. One of the reasons Congress authorized the Department of the Navy was because they recognized that modern warships were getting to large and expensive for a private citizen to actually own and staff. To specialized. The Swiss solved this by providing everyone with a military arm (paid for by the tax payer) and allowed them to keep it at home. More advanced weapons are obviously used, just like our National Guard. This tends to be more efficient as you can provide very advanced arms and the "correct" balance to fit your combined arms strategy. Doesn't negate the fact that everyone needs small arms close by.

One of the primary complaints of the early militias was the quality and quantity of arms. Not everyone had suitable arms for combat. Still true today. Your basic, cheap hunting rifle could be used in modern warfare, but its capabilities pale in comparison to something like an M40 sniper rifle. It should be noted that very advanced arms not necessarily required. As we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, simple arms and guerilla tactics can cause havoc even with the most advanced military. That was only done with a relatively small force...imagine a whole country armed as such. The Germans didn't invade Switzerland for a reason! The Japanese didn't want to invade the US mainland because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

So how do you provide arms? Taxes are used to provide the specialized weapons (those too costly or to specialized) and to support a small, always on defence force. However, if you are relying on private citizens to provide the small arms, as we mostly where in early America (some local governments did have an armory), then there needs to be some standard. The system doesn't work otherwise. If all arms were provided by the government, than the cost of providing them should be equally distributed or close enough to it. However, what do you do if someone refuses to purchase a firearm? The fines were just to encourage the ownership of military like arms. Nearly everyone owned gus, just not everyone owned military applicable arms. Since common defence is a valid function of government, they had to have laws to provide for the common defence within the structure the people wanted.

Health care is not a valid function of government. You can not justify it using the founders moral or ethical system. There are even quotes talking about unlimited government and how they would take over education, roads, etc.

@gunderwood - I was only attempting to draw a parallel with mandatory health care. If progressives want to mandate health care for everyone (which I am staunchly against) then whats wrong with mandating everyone own a gun...not a lot of difference since they are claiming constitutionality as a platform for that position.

I agree with your assertion that no where in the Constitution is health care mandated. Congress does have authority to raise taxes for defense and to promote the welfare of the people but if you inspect the original intent of the "welfare" clause I cannot be convinced its free health care - or a check every week...

zephyp wrote: or a check every week...

Unless said check is sufficient to continuously replenish my gun fund...

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote: or a check every week...

Unless said check is sufficient to continuously replenish my gun fund...

I'm with you. Never been on welfare but did help my granny get "commodities" when I was a little boy. I'm not sure what it was called but once a month she made a trip to a warehouse and picked up all sorts of stuff - everything in cans...canned meat, peanut butter, vegetables, fruits. Only thing that wasnt in cans was rice, flour, and sugar. They were in bags. When I joined the Army and ate C-rations the first time it brought back memories. Same exact kind of cans as granny picked up only smaller. I had KP once (or twice) and they used those same big cans to fix our chow...

Wouldn't it be sweet if this somehow passed and then caught on with other states. Not much chance, but neither is winning the Lotto.

JeffJ wrote:Wouldn't it be sweet if this somehow passed and then caught on with other states. Not much chance, but neither is winning the Lotto.

Yeah right. And every time I flush the toilet a big gold nugget appears at the bottom of the bowl...

Something like this has as much chance of passing as obama, pelosi, and reid holding a joint press conference where they profusely apologize, cry in shame, and resign.

Good wishful thinking though.