Snopesing

What does an info junkie do on a wet Saturday in December?

Get punked.

In my defense, so did the Ithaca Journal.

Here's the story I tweeted today, dated December 5, 2012, by Dave Henderson, Correspondent.

Vermont, which may be the most liberal state in the union, nevertheless is the only state that allows its residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

Go figure.

I’m sure this logic wouldn’t fly in the Ithaca area, but Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack is proposing that the state not only register non-gun owners but also charge them for not having a gun.

Yup, 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.

It seems that Maslack reads 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.

He contends that 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.”

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 told the Associated Press.

Vermont has one of the highest gun ownership rates per capita of any state in the country and its crime rate is third lowest in the nation.

Think about it. There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves. Why not let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Isn’t that reasonable? Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense.

Right?

No, I didn’t think so. Makes too much sense.

OK, so I'm Canadian and therefore able to believe just about anything about nutty Merkins. But Vermont? REGISTERING non—gun-owners? And I couldn't find any other legit source for the story.

I did find this blogpost dated yesterday by someone identified as Tony Oliva, Director of Media Relations for Gun Owners of America.

The facts are the same with an additional fact about a town in Georgia that does have a law on mandatory gun ownership, which seems to be true.

Much of the copy is the same too. (Tony going Wente? Or Tony and Dave going Jekyll and Jekyll?)

Tony adds a justification for the new law.

Of course. Obamacare.

Usually, I have been against the government ruling anything has to be mandatory.  But given the fact that Obamacare not only passed but was affirmed by the Supreme Court, I guess the new law of the land allows the government to force people to buy things.  While it may not be right, as of now it is legal, so why not force people (who are not otherwise barred from owning firearms) to exercise their rights and those persons
who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent”?

I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves. Why not let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Isn’t that reasonable? Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense.

If, as a healthy person, I have to foot the bill for the chain smoking, burger inhaling, cardio hating, Fatty McFattensteins of America, why shouldn’t someone who wants to pass the responsibility of their own protection onto the cops pay for that privilege?

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.

Still looking for 'mandatory gun ownership', I found this about a similar proposal in South Dakota from February 2011.

While some Americans would think the law was a damn fine thing, it turns out [Sioux Fall representative Hal Wick] himself has only advanced the law to highlight what he sees as the injustice of the Obama Administration's healthcare bill.

Makes total sense, eh? Mandatory health care, mandatory gun ownership. (Although in saner societies, one would think the order of events might be reversed.)

I kept looking and found this. The title says it all. Stop with the Fred Maslack emails already.

Apparently Fred is no longer a member of the Vermont legislature and hasn't been for a while.

But a commenter solved the puzzle of where this silliness started.

In a true story in the Boston Globe in February, 2000.

The original proposal had no mention of registering non-owners but there was a $500 fine.

Is this recurrence gun-nut humour? Wishful thinking? Simple madness?

Anyway, it was fun.

Yes. I'm weird.

And no. Snopes doesn't know about it.