The Supreme Court has agreed to hear what is arguably the most important gun rights case in U.S. history - the Chicago handgun ban. Without going into arcane administrative details, since 1984 (how appropriate) if you live in the city of Chicago, you are not allowed to own a handgun. Period. Not even in your own home.

You might find it ironic, if not downright laughable, that a city like Chicago, which is awash in drug and gang violence, is more worried about normal citizens owning handguns. After all, the city's legions of gang-bangers are most certainly armed - the latest FBI study shows that these inner-city thugs are carrying guns as early as age nine, and by age seventeen, most carry a gun every day - it's part of their wardrobe. So denying the innocent people the right to protect themselves and their families seems rather ludicrous on its face.

Besides, after years of piling gun law upon gun law - Chicago citizens even have to get a photo ID card just to buy even rifle ammunition - the affect on crime has been zero. The carnage on their streets continues unabated, with Chicago vying every year for the title of "Murder Capitol, USA" - competing with such violence-ridden meccas as Detroit, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. - all of which, coincidentally, have equally restrictive gun control laws.

Obviously, people have a fundamental right to protect themselves, and we should do everything possible to guarantee that right. But perhaps a more provocative question is: do citizens also have a duty to protect themselves? After all, it is a well known fact that the mere existence of the high gun ownership rates in the United States contributes to our very low incidence of "hot" or "occupied home" break-ins - only the most ruthless thugs consider entering the average American household.

And here is a case where even the exception proves the rule - in cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. which ban gun ownership almost completely, the rates of home invasion are much higher. Of course they are - the thugs know they are less likely to encounter an armed home-owner than in states and cities with few restrictions. 

Thus, it can accurately be said that where a large percentage of the populace arms themselves, they contribute to the safety of the community at large - because even home-owners who don't own guns get the benefit of the deterrence affect. They are, in economic terms, "free riders" in the system.

Which goes to my original question: since high rates of private gun ownership have been shown to deter crime, is it reasonable to require, or at least, reward, gun ownership? In the spirit of freedom, we would of course not mandate gun ownership - although there are several cases of individual American small towns doing just that. But we certainly could give citizens the choice of either a) owning a gun, or b) paying a tax to offset the benefit they receive from all the other taxpayers who do own guns. Call it the "free-ride" tax (an oxymoron to be sure, but it works).

Well, just such a bill is being proposed - and not in Texas, or Arizona. No, this bit of legislative inventiveness has been the work of State Rep. Fred Maslack of... Vermont. Yes, ultra-liberal Vermont, the only state in America with a registered socialist senator. And instead of registering gun owners, the bill would require all NON-gun owners to obtain a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed, and to pay a fee of $500 for the privilege.

Sound  crazy? Well, Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - they even allows citizens to carry concealed firearms...without a permit. And for those who still believe in the myth that somehow more guns must equal more violence, note that Vermont's combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

And since additional data show that the proliferation of handgun carry laws (now in all but two states - Wisconsin, and, no surprise, Illinois) has a beneficial affect on deterring crimes out on the street (the bad guys don't know who is armed and who is not) is it not then also reasonable for us to assign a tax to all those who, even though they themselves don't carry a gun, are just a bit safer thanks to the millions of Americans who do?

Hey, President Obama wants to fine people thousands of dollars for not protecting themselves with health insurance, on the grounds that their lack of financial responsibility means they are receiving the benefits paid for by the rest of us. Why then should we not tack on a fee to all of those whose refusal to protect themselves means they, too are getting a free ride in terms of crime deterrence?