Pulled over by PCSO.

[amlevin]

A good single malt starts at 6 bucks per shot at a cheap bar.

A bottle of it STARTS (in Washington 5 years ago) at 50 per 750ml bottle.

Even my good friends don't know when I have it.

I used to have a Brother in Law that solved the economic problem that "inviting the friends over to drink" often presented.

For the first round he poured from a bottle of the "Good Stuff", usually a Glenlivet or better. The bottle then was put on it's shelf below the bar. All "refils" were then poured from a bottle that had the same brand name on it but had been refilled with some "Sheep Dip" brand, usually Old Smuggler or the like.

Got away with that for years.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I had some homemade Indian (from India) style stuff the other day.....very good.

 

[Trigger Dr]

Well, we are so far OT, this will probably fit right in...
novel approach to the gun ownership issue...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





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 YEARLY 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 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 are "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 not 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. ( NOT TRUE..AZ and AK also allows this-PW) 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.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
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 to defend themselves.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go tO paying for their defense!

 

[bmg50cal]

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. ( NOT TRUE..AZ and AK also allows this-PW)

Don't forget WY also has constitutional carry.

Wow, WA could make so much money charging $500 on all the non-owners... Make a public registry so everyone knows where the robbers can go break in without resistance...

 

[Freedom1Man]

Don't forget WY also has constitutional carry.

Wow, WA could make so much money charging $500 on all the non-owners... Make a public registry so everyone knows where the robbers can go break in without resistance...

SECTION 1 WHO LIABLE TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen (18) and forty-five (45) years except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty.

SECTION 5 PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST. The militia shall, in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at musters and elections of officers, and in going to and returning from the same.

SECTION 6 EXEMPTION FROM MILITARY DUTY. No person or persons, having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to do militia duty in time of peace: Provided, such person or persons shall pay an equivalent for such exemption. [emphasis mine]



Looks like the same thing could apply in the State of Washington also.

Except the following part might be a hangup.


SECTION 4 PUBLIC ARMS. The legislature shall provide by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms.



So if this were to hit Washington then it looks like it might only apply to people between (from) 18 and (to)45 (?).
If we take a clear line English reading then it would be people who are from 19 to 44 years of age. So if you're 18 and younger you're not required to be part of the state militia and if you're 45 and older you're exempt also.

Either way, I think it is a great idea.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

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 YEARLY 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 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 are "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 not 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. ( NOT TRUE..AZ and AK also allows this-PW) 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.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
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 to defend themselves.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go tO paying for their defense!

While I appreciate the intent of his interpretation, mandating that someone must or must not do "xyz", and pay a fee for doing or not doing "xyz", creates a slippery slope that chills me to the bone. It is the antithesis of liberty to decree one's participation (or lack thereof) in a behavior is controlled by the government. I also take issue with his statement;

"There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Good lord, that is a loaded sentence that could be interpreted many different ways, most of them nefarious. The Constitution says we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but a RIGHT is exercised at will. Paying for the privilege to not carry a gun turns our RIGHT into a government mandated order, which is the opposite of a right. Not to mention such orders can be flipped to the opposite spectrum! The point of rights is that I have the freedom to decide whether I want to exercise them or not.

Maslack speaks of using our RKBA as an antidote to the monopoly of government, but then wishes to use the very same government to mandate what supposedly free citizens can and should do. :uhoh:

 

[DocWalker]

While I appreciate the intent of his interpretation, mandating that someone must or must not do "xyz", and pay a fee for doing or not doing "xyz", creates a slippery slope that chills me to the bone. It is the antithesis of liberty to decree one's participation (or lack thereof) in a behavior is controlled by the government. I also take issue with his statement; :uhoh:

The goverment can just call it a TAX like they did with the HEATHCARE MANDATE.......

 

[GreatWhiteLlama]

*snip*

Interesting. Do you have a link to a news article or something for this?

 

[bmg50cal]

While I appreciate the intent of his interpretation, mandating that someone must or must not do "xyz", and pay a fee for doing or not doing "xyz", creates a slippery slope that chills me to the bone. It is the antithesis of liberty to decree one's participation (or lack thereof) in a behavior is controlled by the government. I also take issue with his statement;

Good lord, that is a loaded sentence that could be interpreted many different ways, most of them nefarious. The Constitution says we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but a RIGHT is exercised at will. Paying for the privilege to not carry a gun turns our RIGHT into a government mandated order, which is the opposite of a right. Not to mention such orders can be flipped to the opposite spectrum! The point of rights is that I have the freedom to decide whether I want to exercise them or not.

Maslack speaks of using our RKBA as an antidote to the monopoly of government, but then wishes to use the very same government to mandate what supposedly free citizens can and should do. :uhoh:

I'd rather we do it like Switzerland...

 

[sirpuma]

So if this were to hit Washington then it looks like it might only apply to people between (from) 18 and (to)45 (?).
If we take a clear line English reading then it would be people who are from 19 to 44 years of age. So if you're 18 and younger you're not required to be part of the state militia and if you're 45 and older you're exempt also.

Either way, I think it is a great idea.

Typically in math when you list a set of numbers between a pair of numbers (all integers between x and y) usually includes the end numbers unless explicitly excluded. So in the case of this legal note the age range includes the 18 and 45.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Don't forget WY also has constitutional carry.

Wow, WA could make so much money charging $500 on all the non-owners... Make a public registry so everyone knows where the robbers can go break in without resistance...

Montana also has partial constitutional carry, one is blanketly allowed to carry a concealed firearm on their person outside the limits of a city, town, settlement, or logging, mining, or railroading camp.

Open carry with no permit inside these areas is perfectly ok...

 

[F350]

Well, we are so far OT, this will probably fit right in...
novel approach to the gun ownership issue...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





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 YEARLY 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 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 are "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 not 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. ( NOT TRUE..AZ and AK also allows this-PW) 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.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
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 to defend themselves.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go tO paying for their defense!

Wouldn't be the first time........ Enacted by the same congress that ratified the constitution

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

The goverment can just call it a TAX like they did with the HEATHCARE MANDATE.......

Or they could just call it what it really is; a penalty.

"Obey us, or suffer!"

 

[DocWalker]

Or they could just call it what it really is; a penalty.

"Obey us, or suffer!"

Yes but the SCOTUS has said it is ok to penalize the US citizen but it must be called a tax and not a penalty. don't you love how the goverment plays word games but it is us the average US citizen that takes it up the rear door....

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Yeah, it's glorious.

 

[Motofixxer]

Yes but the SCOTUS has said it is ok to penalize the US citizen but it must be called a tax and not a penalty. don't you love how the goverment plays word games but it is us the average US citizen that takes it up the rear door....

The problem is the ignorance of "The People". If one was to dig in and start to research it becomes evident quickly what is happening. Much of it is plainly worded and defined. Ignorant people don't know what their doing, so who's fault is it? The problem is...if you are a US Citizen then you are handed privileges and civil rights. The difference IS intentionally in the wording and circumstances.

For some interesting reading go here it clarifies things a bit. http://books.google.com/books?id=Rm...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false "A treatise on American citizenship"

Here is an interesting quote: Page 2 "The Standard Dictionary(1898), which describes it as 'the status of a citizen with its rights and privileges.' The status of a citizen implies the existence of-
(1) A political body established to promote the general welfare and collective, as well as individual, rights of those composing it.
(2)Individuals who have established, or submitted themselves to the dominion of, that political body.
(3) Such benefit from, or participation in, the administration of that political body by the individuals composing it, that they may be designated as citizens, and not as mere subjects of a despot or an absolute monarch under whom they have no voice in administration.

Page 21-
Footnote 7-
"The term 'citizen,' as understood in OUR law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the
common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT.
The sovereignty has been transferred from ONE MAN to the COLLECTIVE body of the people- and
he who before was a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of the State.'" State v. Manuel, (1838) 4 Dev.
& B.L. (N. Car.) 26, quoted U.S. v. Rhodes, (1866) 1 Abb. (U.S.) 39, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.

This is all very different that the inherent rights we were born with and given by out creator.

What's happening is actually just what was designed and intended. We just haven't paid attention to the fine print.

For more interesting reading, The Law of Agency http://books.google.com/books?id=nY...a=X&ei=b1qQUMKpM6nWygGs_4DgBw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA