Delftsman

Finally! A Politician that has really read the Constitution, and wants to conform to it ! You people in Vermont should consider giving Mr. Maslack a promotion and buck him up to the Congress or Senate, where he may be able to help the rest of the Nation regain it's roots.

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.

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.

Mr. Maslack IS more historically accurate... ...many citizens opted to pay a "war tax", for someone to fight in their place, in both the Spanish-American and Civil Wars, rather than be conscripted themselves to fight for the US.

If you are not going to serve "in the Militia", then you SHOULD have to pay a "tax" to "hire someone to take your place", and "be armed for the State" on your behalf, if you choose not to serve.