It's not like this is the first town to do so. The town in Georgia, Kenesaw?, passed a similar law a good number of years ago, and it's still in force AFAI.Who's going to challenge the law, some out of stater brought in by the ACLU? They wouldn't have standing to challenge it. On what basis would it be unconstitutional? What provision of the Constitution would it violate? The federal government could pass such a law tomorrow, and it would be constitutional as well. In fact, one of the first laws passed by the first Congress did something similar, although the requirement was only on males (try that today!) It also specified that the arms be of the type used by the army! (hmm, wonder if that one was ever formally repealed? ah well it was too specific, so it would require us to own a musket, of a particular calibre, or a rifle, depending on where we lived. If we had a horse, we'd have to have a brace of pistols and a saber...maybe the people in places that ban pistols should go out and buy a horse? :) )
This KS law doesn't require anyone morally scrupulous of being armed to keep arms. So what is your problem? Better they should tax everybody, and use the money to buy a nice shiney police car and hire Barney to drive it? Oh and of course buy Barney a gun a bullet or two?
My "problem" is government getting ever more intrusive and mandating what I must own.
I am a gun owner by choice.
In my life time I have run into people who I can only hope are not gun owners and I am sure you have too. I am not talking about criminals either, just people who have a screw loose, don't have both oars in the water and have managed to escape the notice of people who could legally call the men in white coats on them
Scary to think that they may not have ever considered owning a gun until some government authority told them that they had to own one.