Saturday, November 7, 2009

Rep. Fred Maslack (Vermont State Rep.)

UPDATE:  THIS IS AN OLD STORY - An anonymous commenter said it was a hoax so I checked it out.  Then I posted an update with "This is a Hoax" in the first line.

Another commenter said it was just old so I checked further and it appears that is correct (just old.)  So I removed the "This is a hoax" statement.  Anyway, I'm not going to work any further on this and you'll do your own research if you're smart. Thanks to "cachick1111" and everyone who cared enough to post a comment.  Maybe we can all learn something.

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.

( I can't wait to see what happens with this)

12 comments:

Evil Klown said...

Nothing will happen with that ... he's just illustrating the idiocy of the gun-control nuts.

In Switzerland, the government issues each household a gun and trains the citizens on its proper use.

Robert said...

You are right it will never happen. At least not with the liberal leftys we currently have in the White house.

HadesHubs said...

This should be the Law of the Land. It would Identify and Tax the freeloaders that are living in safety in the shadows of those who are armed, and are willing to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.~!

Those that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin

G&K said...

If you read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime, you see just how much benefit the general public gets from those of us who are armed. Hell, if we're required to have health insurance, we surely should be required to have a gun for the general welfare too.

Anonymous said...

I think it is up to the hard working home owner to protect his home and family any way he can. Even if guns are outlawed the outlaws will still have them.

Anonymous said...

Fact check: At least one other State, Alaska, does not require a permit for concealed carry. Alaska does offer a permit for those who travel to the lower 48.

Token said...

Fred's been out of office a while too.

Anonymous said...

You are all a bunch of crack pots!!

Anonymous said...

It's a hoax

There is no Rep. Fred Maslack in Vermont. See
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/lms/legdir/alpha.asp?Body=H#M

The post at the link to the American Prospect web site is dated March 27, 2000. Don't know where the author at rumormillnews.com got his or her information, but it's obviously wrong.
Submitted by Carl Etnier on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 7:56pm.

Evil_Klown said...

Thanks for pointing this out.

Anonymous said...

Might be a hoax but brilliant. Maybe the author will run for President.

cachick1111 said...

Not a hoax...did happen in 2000. They're talking about bringing it back now. Don't know where it will go but I like it.

Post a Comment