Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack 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.
During his term in 2000 Maslack proposed House Bill 760 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. People who go around unarmed are causing extra expense for law enforcement, who have to protect them, when they could be protecting themselves and others.
-------------
Kennesaw, Georgia's gun law: You are required to have one.
At one time the Mayor of Kennesaw, Georgia was Darvon Purdy
Darvon Purdy is a member of The John Birch Society.
The John Birch Society co-ordinator told Darvon Purdy that he thought it would be better, if everyone was REQUIRED to own a gun, as the law is,
in Switzerland.
Darvon Purdy decided that he would introduce that legislation.
IT PASSED.
In Kennesaw, Georgia every adult citizen is required to own a gun.
Crime went WAY DOWN.
Actually I would not usually suggest that government
PROVIDE anything except protection.
In the case of guns and Kennesaw,
I would relate this:
I attended a John Birch Society meeting in Atlanta, Georgia;
where Mayor Darvon Purdy read a series of letters between himself and the Mayor of Morton Grove, Illinois.
Morton Grove, Illinois had unconstitutionally outlawed firearms.
Mayor Darvon Purdy had asked the Mayor of Morton Grove, Illinois if they would be so kind as to send the guns that they were confiscating to Kennesaw,
so that they could be ISSUED to the citizens of Kennesaw.
We were rolling in the aisles as we listened to those letters
On May 1, 1982, this ordinance was passed by the city council of Kennesaw:
Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(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.
