Vermont bill would fine citizens for NOT having a firearm, register non-gun owners

[The Straight Story]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by REP (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Vermont bill would fine citizens for NOT having a firearm


Vermont Rep. Fred Maslack is proposing that the state not only register non-gun owners but also charge them for not having a gun. Under Maslack’s proposal Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of traipsing about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

This wouldn’t be the first time in America that such a law was passed. In Kennesaw, GA, gun ownership has been mandatory since 1982 with a fine of $100 being levied for violators. In contrast to the hysteria the gun control zealots were expounding at the time, crime was drastically lowered while the population skyrocketed.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

Maslack’s bill in Vermont, atop the $500 fine, would also require non gun owners to register with the state. 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.

http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/vermont-bill-would-fine-citizens-for-not-having-a-firearm/

[marmar]

1. This isn't from the Onion?

nt

[Fumesucker]

2. So this could be thought of as a sort of private mandate, yes?

[dballance]

13. LOL - Great Point! /eom

[JoePhilly]

3. The Bill then also identifies all gun owners.

The names of all the people in the state are known.

And so, if you identify all of the non-gun owners, you have also created a list of all gun owners.

Which means thanks to this law, the government can identify all of those with guns, and then confiscate said guns whenever they want.

Dope.

[sadbear]

7. D'oh!!!

[slackmaster]

19. That's some powerful, relentless logic you used there JoePhilly

[still_one]

4. Cannot be constitutional

[justabob]

8. that was my first thought too

but you'd think it would have been challenged years before in the GA town referenced in the article. I wonder if it did get challenged then?

[madokie]

39. This reads like bullshit from the gun lobby

before I'd believe anything said I'd have to verify it through other sources.

[Fumesucker]

15. Being fined if you don't purchase a private product is unconstitutional?

That kind of thinking is so Twentieth Century.

[Drale]

5. Are the Tea Baggers going to scream and cry and sue about this MANDATE? /nt

[auburngrad82]

6. I lived in Kennesaw when they passed the law

I lived there for several years, never owned a gun, and was fined exactly zero times.

[justabob]

9. was the Kennesaw law challenged?

I mean was it determined to be constitutional?

[slackmaster]

20. The Kennesaw law had a conscientious objector clause

[justabob]

25. thanks

that makes all the difference, but this is still stupid idea.

I am surprised Texas, Oklahoma and others haven't tried this. Perhaps they have thought through the conundrum of keeping lists of gun owners/non-owners mentioned elsewhere in this thread? I don't know, but I hope this isn't the next wave to sweep the states.

[petronius]

44. Some news articles I read state that the Kennesaw law was amended in response

to a court challenge, to include the language about conscientious objectors:

(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.

Text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

I suspect that "I believe this law is really silly and a bad idea" would come pretty close to qualifying for an exemption. Either way, it has apparently never been enforced, and is more symbolic than anything...

[Whovian]

10. Ever been to Kennesaw, GA?

You have Klan memorabilia stores there endorsed by the city, just about all white, and a civil war "museum around every corner.

Quoting from your post, "Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189."

They are a suburb of Atlanta and 3,899 per 100,000 works out to about maybe 220 crimes in Kennesaw with a population of appx. 5k. Less than one CRIME per day in a metro area including the crimes of marijuana possession, DUI, shoplifting, and tons of others where a gun would NEVER be involved in the situation.

That has to be the most misleading statement I have read since the last time I ended up on a Fox news page.

[RebelOne]

22. Yes, I lived there for 5 years.

It has the lowest crime rate in Georgia because of the gun law. I now live in Woodstock, which is next door to Kennesaw. Woodstock also has a very low crime rate.

[bongbong]

37. Interesting

> It has the lowest crime rate in Georgia because of the gun law.

What evidence do you have of this?

Your point is similar to the fact that I keep a tiger-repelling rock near my door, and tigers never show up!

[apocalypsehow]

23. Klan memorabilia, all white, and pro-Confederate: sounds like an "RKBA" paradise.

Surprised the NRA doesn't move it's headquarters there.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. ...

[bongbong]

12. Other than the logic lies, the article is fine

> crime was drastically lowered

Delicate Flowers (gun-nuts) can repeat the lie until time ends (which they will), but correlation is not causation.

More guns cause more injuries among gun-owners (proven in the Harvard doctor's study), and less guns equal less deaths (proven by hundreds of more civilized countries than the USA)

[apocalypsehow]

24. Yep. But they keep peddling that palpably bogus line. Good post.

[jehop61]

14. We burnt our bras

in protest in the 60s. Do we need to burn guns in the town square in protwst now?

[AnOhioan]

16. File this one under "Idiotic laws" Glad I don't have this guy representing me.

[-..__...]

17. More symbolic and meant to dope slap anti-gun crusaders...

and give them a dose of their own medicine.

For that, I applaud the move.

Realistically... unlikely to go anywhere, unenforceable and probably unconstitutional.

[CreekDog]

45. so you support requiring ownership of firearms and oppose restriction of them?

your positions get more laughable the longer you're here.

[-..__...]

46. Whatever led you to belive that?

so you support requiring ownership of firearms

Nope... never even suggested or hinted at such a thing.

My take on this, is that it was meant to rattle the cages of the opposition by coming up with a "two can play this game" approach.

And that, I have no problem with.

and oppose restriction of them?

This... guilty as charged.

[CreekDog]

48. you support a law requiring ownership to prove a point

but you'd oppose a law that restricts ownership to prove a point.

like i said, your laughable inconsistency is completely obvious.

[-..__...]

49. Reading comprehnsion isn't one of your strong points...

is it?

[Turbineguy]

18. Next they'll throw you in jail

for not shooting somebody.

[Dirty Socialist]

21. This Better Be Defeated

I don't give it much of a chance of being passed in Vermont.

[cali]

31. It has exactly no chance whatsofuckingever

this idiot is just trying to make some point. Dems have a supermajority in both the VT House and the VT Senate.

[apocalypsehow]

26. What is going to be oh so sweet, and it's looking more & more like it'll happen in my lifetime,

is when the House of Representatives goes Blue for good thanks to demographics, and President Obama or his Democratic successor is able to appoint two, three or maybe even more Supreme Court justices. No more obstacles to doing the right, civilized thing about firearms and the carnage their easy availability has upon our communities!

Then we'll get us some meaningful gun control legislation, and the Heller/McDonald decisions overturned to boot. Young, college-educated people aren't buying the NRA's message anymore, and the minority communities which have been devastated by the ravages of firearms violence so some right-wingers can fondle assault rifles and strut around Wal Mart with a pistol perched in their pants don't need to be convinced of the selfishness and hateful indifference of the typical "RKBA" advocate to their situation.

Those days are coming, whether our "law abiding gun owners" like it or not: and when it does, they'll be faced with a choice. They can either register their toys and turn the ones in no civilian has any business possessing - like assault rifles; like semi-automatic handguns; like shotguns capable of chambering more than three rounds; all .50 calibers; etc., etc. - and continue to be "law-abiding gun owners" with the .22's and shotguns and sports pistols our society graciously allows them to continue to own as long as they register them and pass an FBI background check, or they can take the "no one's going to be the boss of me" attitude that is so rampant among the ranks of the armed and angry of the "RKBA" movement. And then we'll just see what happens, about like we did with those restaurant owners who said "no one's gonna be the boss of me!!!" after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, and they didn't want to take down their "Whites Only" signs. I haven't seen one of those signs in a long, long, time - and that's a good thing. As will the day meaningful gun control legislation is passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President and then upheld by a liberal-majority Supreme Court that understands the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, not the Scalia-Rambo fantasy that says "a pistol in every pot!"

It's going to be a great day to relish when it arrives, and it's a'coming. The sooner the better.

Cross-posted & edited.

[Little Star]

27. He's a two-term Republican legislator. According to Maslack....

"There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so."

Maslack has also introduced a bill requiring compulsory military training as a prerequisite for a high school diploma in the state.

He's a fruit loop. Here is a good write-up: http://prospect.org/article/vermonts-right-not-bear-arms

[apocalypsehow]

30. Sounds like a real piece of work. n/t.

[surrealAmerican]

43. Surely, the government of Vermont already knows ...

... who is "preparared to defend the state should they be asked to do so". That would be members of the Vermont Natoinal Guard. Just owning a gun would hardly mean you would risk your life for the state. Heck, you might be choosing to fight against the state with that gun.

[fwm]

28. Check the Vermont listing of current legislature.

You will find that his name is no where to be found.

[cali]

29. you know where this is going? No where. Dems have a supermajority in both houses.

Not to mention the most progressive Guv in the country. this is just posturing.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

32. Wait!? This is happening in VERMONT!?

A state that President Obama won by 36% (67% to 31%)!?! I could see this type of bill in a place like here in PA, but not Vermont!

[cali]

34. No. It's not happening. It didn't happen. It was some idiot trying to make some point

and it was years ago.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

35. Oh...I didn't know it was years ago...Didn't read the whole thing

And I assumed that it would never pass because of how liberal a state Vermont is

[-..__...]

36. Maybe that's why VT is one of 3 States...

that doesn't require any permit/license to carry a concealed firearm, and why the law was never changed.

[cali]

38. huh? what are you trying to say?

[-..__...]

41. That the Liberal legislature of VT...

doesn't pick and choose the amendments to the BOR that pleases or displeases them, and it doesn't have a problem with it's citizens possessing and carrying firearms.

[Marrah_G]

47. In VT anyone who can legally own a gun can carry concealed

Surprisingly they have some of the lowest gun crime statistics in the country. I'm not quite sure why. It could be the ruralness of the state or even the liberal nature of much of the state.

Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws and has a higher rate of gun violence. The biggest difference I can see is the density of the population.

[cali]

33. this is from 2001. I doubt the bill even made anywhere near a vote.

[justanidea]

40. Stupid law.

I'm a gun owner and support gun rights, but forcing people to buy a gun is ludicrous.

Not to mention it would be like defacto gun registration. Since having a list of all the non-gun owners means you also have a list of all gun owners.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Nice RW blog you're reading there:

Do I expect this legislation in Vermont to go anywhere? I’m not sure. When similar bills have come up before in Vermont they haven’t gotten any traction but ever since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare who knows.

If the long lasting effect of Obamacare (besides crippling the health industry) is that mandatory gun ownership legislation sweeps the nation then I will laugh long and hard. Gotta love karma.

Apart from being about a failed attempt in 2001, it's also RW bullshit. Is that your regular reading?

[REP]

50. Locking

Gun topics are welcome in GC&RBKA but are an SoP violation in this Forum.