Should we follow Vermont ??

[wizard_of_ahs]

Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I was going to say "nope"...til I got to this line:

"You can't ignore the duties and invoke the privileges."

Hmmm...

 

[Ted]

A 2001 article. Really?

 

[eldirector]

Huh. Never read Vermont's Constitution. Here are the two sections of note:
The Vermont Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article 9th. Citizens' rights and duties in the state; bearing arms; taxation

That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member's proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto, but no part of any person's property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person's own consent, or that of the Representative Body, nor can any person who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if such person will pay such equivalent; nor are the people bound by any law but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good: and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.

and

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Of course, Representative Fred Maslack and Joanna Mareth should have scrolled down a bit before the immigration comment:

Article 19th. Right to emigrate

That all people have a natural and inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them.

Interesting idea..... I don't personally buy into it (no pun intended), but it IS in their constitution.

 

[HoughMade]

Sure we should follow that proposal. No problem taking freedom away as long as it forces people to do what I think they should.

 

[dboz]

That article states that homosexuals are barred from military service. If the proposal to tax people who do not own a firearm is in an article that old, there is a good chance that it will not be coming to the national spotlight any time soon.

 

[Clay]

when something becomes a requirement then it is no longer a right.

 

[HavokCycle]

when something becomes a requirement then it is no longer a right.

this.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

when something becomes a requirement then it is no longer a right.

Not at all. The right to arms started as a duty and then became a right.

Nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government mandating firearms ownership.

 

[jrogers]

Of course, Representative Fred Maslack and Joanna Mareth should have scrolled down a bit before the immigration comment:

That clause deals primarily with the right to leave the state. Should the state of Vermont choose not to receive immigrants the clause would not apply.

 

[Ted]

Not at all. The right to arms started as a duty and then became a right.

Nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government mandating firearms ownership.

Interesting perspective.

As the defense of oneself, family, and property have always been a right.......wouldn't the means of such been considered one as well?

 

[sgtonory]

Not at all. The right to arms started as a duty and then became a right.

Nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government mandating firearms ownership.

How can you grant a right? We all have unlimited rights as long as we don't infringe upon anothers rights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How can you grant a right?

It was not granted, it was ordered/mandated. You SHALL have this weapon or these weapons.

Mandating the possession of arms has an ancient history in our roots, from the Book of Numbers, the Assize of Arms, to Colonial ordinances to modern day mandates.

For further illustration of how the mandate for arms became the right to arms I recommend Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed.

Stephen P. Halbrook - Books - That Every Man Be Armed

As the defense of oneself, family, and property have always been a right.......wouldn't the means of such been considered one as well?

Just as the right to food implies the right to eat it. Of course.

However, this is the right of self-defense in the Ninth Amendment.

 

[CBR1000rr]

when something becomes a requirement then it is no longer a right.

I will agree but I would also add that being required to gain permission to exercise ones rights means that it truly isn't a right but a privilege.

 

[canav844]

Not at all. The right to arms started as a duty and then became a right.

Nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government mandating firearms ownership.

It's not a mandate, it's not a requirement, it's a tax. SCOTUS laid the ground work for this over the summer.