[SnakeDoctor]

Clever. Constitutionally unjustifiable (the 2nd amendment clearly does not mandate gun ownership; having the right does not mandate exercising the right) — but clever nonetheless.

SnakeDoc

[MortMan]

Check the cited language in the state constitution. This couldn’t be applied nationwide, but actually appears justified for Vermont.

[taxcontrol]

While you are correct about the US Constitution, consider the following from the Vermont Constitution:

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.

[An Old Man]

Clever indeed! However, the Vermont state constitution does require you to own a gun, and provides for the payment of a fee if you should choose not to own one.

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."

[ctdonath2]

the 2nd amendment clearly does not mandate gun ownership; having the right does not mandate exercising the right

You'll have to reconcile that with the Militia Act of 1792, where the very Founding Fathers who wrote & ratified the 2nd Amendment just a year prior, required all militia members (i.e.: all 17-45 year old able-bodied men) to arm themselves to minimal standards at their own cost. Updated to today, that would entail requiring you to buy an M16 + case of ammo, plus standard camping gear. Doubt that's unconstitutional, as the guys who wrote the Constitution implemented the requirement.

[Oztrich Boy]

Constitutionally unjustifiable (the 2nd amendment

The existance of the militia is already regognised in the body of the Constitution before amendments.

With the precedent of 1000 years of the militia in Anglo cultural tradition there was no need to claim the power for the Government - preexisting power to defend the state against threats en mass, just as there is to maintain the peace against individual rascals.