WASHINGTON, DC -- A bill in Vermont that would require
non-gunowners to register with the government and pay a
$500 fee for the "privilege" of not owning a firearm is not
only a bad idea, says the Libertarian Party -- it's an
affront to the Second Amendment. 

"Non-gunowners have rights, too," said Steve Dasbach,
the party's national director. "Just as the Second
Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms,
so, too, should it protect your right to not-keep and
not-bear arms. 

"Ultimately, this law would be just as unfair and
un-American as laws that force gun owners to register
with the government. That's why Libertarians fervently
defend the right of gunowners and non-gunowners alike to
be free of government harassment." 

The bill, H. 760, was filed by State Representative Fred
Maslack (R-Poultney) last year, and there is a "good
chance" he will re-introduce it this year, he said. Maslack
also said he expects copy-cat bills to be filed in other
states. It would require every Vermont adult who chooses
not to own a gun to register their name, address, driver's
license number, and Social Security number with the state
government. 

Any citizen of military age (except members of the armed
forces or police) who does not own a gun would also have
to pay a $500 "registration fee." 

Maslack argued that the Second Amendment and the
Vermont constitution confer a positive obligation on
citizens to own guns for the "defense of themselves and
the state." The state government should therefore
maintain a list of all citizens who reject that obligation,
he said, and should collect $500 to cover the cost of
someone else assuming that responsibility. 

Yes, the proposal is thought-provoking and clever -- and
would provide an ironic come-uppance to gun-haters had it
passed -- but it should be rejected for several reasons,
said Dasbach: 

* H. 760 presumes that the Second Amendment not only
protects your right to own a gun, but imposes an
affirmative obligation to do so. "But the Bill of Rights
imposes no obligation to exercise any right, nor does it
grant the government the power to punish you for not
doing so," he said. "For example, the First Amendment
recognizes your right to freedom of religion. But the
government has no right to mandate registration of
atheists." 

* H. 760 presumes that government has the right to
determine the status and parameters of gun ownership.
"After all, if government has the right to make you
register and pay a fee for not owning a gun, doesn't it also
have the right to do the opposite?" he said. "That's why
even the most fervent pro-gunner should oppose this law."


* H. 760 creates a de-facto list of gunowners. "By creating
a registration database of non-gunowners, this bill also
gives the government a list of gunowners -- that is, all the
military-age adults not in the non-gunowners database,"
he said. "That's a list the government has no business
having." 

* H. 760 discriminates against non-gunowners. "By forcing
non-gunowners to pay a $500 fee, this law punishes people
who may oppose firearms for religious or moral reasons,"
he said. "Adults should have the right to make decisions
about guns without government pressure." 

* H. 760 could be the beginning of a "slippery slope" of
laws attacking non-gunowners. "If this law passes, what's
next?" he asked. "Background checks for non-gunowners?
A five-day waiting period before you're allowed not to own
a gun? A higher registration fee if you decide not to own
an AK-47 than if you decide not to own a pistol?" 

However, there is one potentially beneficial result if such
a law was passed, admitted Dasbach. 

"To paraphrase the classic bumpersticker, if you outlaw
not having a gun, only outlaws won't have guns," he said.
"H. 760 may be the only law ever proposed that could
actually accomplish that goal."