Town passes ordinance requiring firearms

LubbockOnline ^ | 11/24/04

[ppaul]

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. — Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

"This ordinance fulfills the duty to protect by allowing each individual householder to provide for his or her protection," said Councilman John Brewer.

LINKS:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/cgi-bin/printit2000.pl

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/112403/nat_112403032.shtml

[Stopislamnow]

Just OUTSTANDING!

[Havoc]

Self defense Bump!!

[Puppage]

They did the very same thing in Kennesaw GA. Seeminly overnight rape & burglary plunged. In the surrounding towns......these crimes skyrocketed.

FACT, criminals will go where the law abiding gun owners aren't.

[Squantos]

Fine nooooze from the land of Ahhhhhh's !

[nuffsenuff]

Didn't read the article but when should we expect the ACLU to challenge this one in court?

I'm thinking they won't touch it because it would expose them as actually being contrary to civil liberties... but you never know, they could surprise me on this one...

[dirtboy]

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of government mandating the exercise of a given right - because is it really a right if you have no choice from the government whether to exercise it or not?

[yonif]

Why are you fined for not having a gun? I support having guns, however, it isn't a right not a requirement for the citizens in the US to bear arms?

[AngryJawa]

While I'm 100% RKBA and indeed think it's foolish not to have firearms available for defense of the home...

...isn't the government overstepping its bounds here?

[yonif]

it isn't a right not a requirement for the citizens in the US to bear arms?

meant to say

isn't it a right not a requirement for the citizens in the US to bear arms?

[mewzilla]

And who says you have to have a firearm to be armed?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I had never heard of this town, even though I remember living in Oxford when very young.

Sumner County Pictures

[yonif]

Anything would do, true. However, it is a right to be armed not a requirement by our constitutional amendments.

[ought-six]

Well, it looks like some towns have some common sense.

[ppaul]

The state has a duty to protect.
One way to fulfill that duty is to require all to keep arms.
It's a right, yeah.
But it also may be a duty imposed by law.
I have the right to come to the defense of my country.
In time of war, the government may require that I do so.
i.e.: the draft.

[mewzilla]

True. They won't fine anyone, though. How could they? Sounds as though they're just trying to make a statement.

[Centurion2000]

We need to do this in Aubrey Texas ... before the silly a$$ed relocating liberals from Dallas and Plano arrive.

[ppaul]

...isn't the government overstepping its bounds here?

I don't think so.
See #15 above.

[thinktwice]

This sounds like a second-amendment militia ordinance to me.

What a wonderful idea!!!

[yonif]

Sounds as though they're just trying to make a statement.

I suspect you are probably correct.

[No Blue States]

But havent they arrived already? My wife is from pilot point near you and the growth has been amazing..especially the horse ranches. The property is now sky high.

btw, I like this law and hope to see it spread.

[gdani]

...isn't the government overstepping its bounds here?

Yes -- Within the realms of constitutional law, the Govt can not require you to exercise a constitutional right.

In other words, you have a right to free speech and, as a part of that right, you have a right *not* to speak i.e. be compelled by the Govt to speak. You have a right to worship as you please, but the Govt cannot force you to worship.

And so on.

[flutters]

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kansas -- Residents of this south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Non-complying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by city council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers, and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

"This ordinance fulfils the duty to protect by allowing each individual householder to provide for his or her protection," said Coun. John Brewer.

"This is simply using the U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment, in particular - to the city of Geuda Springs' advantage."

Geuda Springs has no local police force; the Sumner County Sheriff's Department is responsible for policing the area. Sheriff Gerald Gilkey said the ordinance makes him concerned for the safety of his officers.

"This throws up red flags," he said.

The town's city attorney, Thomas Herlocker, also opposes the measure, which has not taken effect because it has yet to be published. He said he plans to ask the council to reverse itself on the issue. The council meets next on Dec. 1.

Whitney Watson, a spokesman for Attorney General Phill Kline, declined to comment on the legality of such an ordinance, which is similar to one passed in Kennesaw, Georgia, 21 years ago that is still in effect.

[BlessedBeGod]

Cool!

[ppaul]

The town's city attorney, Thomas Herlocker, also opposes the measure.....

Typical rhetoric ala RDDB parasite.

[glock rocks]

My understanding is that this, unlike the Georgia town's ordinance, doesn't seem to have the opt-out provisions (i.e. for felons, etc.). Oops.

[Moleman]

This is stupid. If I lived there and didn't want guns in the house for what ever reason I would be fined.

Nanny state in reverse IMO

[Redbob]

"...isn't the government overstepping its bounds here?"

And would this be the first time?

Have you ever heard of a town making a "Statement" - like those Left Coast looneys that declare their towns "nuclear-free zones" and such?

[dmz]

please show me constitutional grounds for this, as you seem to support it. The amendment is quoted for you below.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Rights, to my understanding, can be exercised or not, at the discretion of the individual.

will the town next require all citizens to own megaphones, so their free speech can be heard by all?

If, as some say on this thread, that this is just the town's way of making a statement, that it will not ever prosecute, isn't this law just like all the other gun laws on the books that no-one pays any attention to, you know, the ones that freepers completely ridicule?

I'll avoid the Christmas rush and ridicule this law immediately.

[blackie]

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

[ppaul]

The state has the right to regulate the free exercise of a "right" so long as the restrictions are reasonable as to time, place, and manner.
For instance, can you legally posess a fully-automatic M-16 without a special permit?
Can you possess a concealed weapon without a permit?
Can you carry a pistol in a public school building?
Aren't these all examples of "infringements"?
A well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free state". It would seem that since it is necessary, the state can impose reaonable requirements that able-bodied citizens, as part of that "necessary" militia, be required to keep firearms and ammunition handy. Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. The state can reasonable require certain citizens to keep them.

[CounterCounterCulture]

While I'm 100% RKBA and indeed think it's foolish not to have firearms available for defense of the home...
...isn't the government overstepping its bounds here?

Clearly.

[Callahan]

I don't envision any commie war-protests taking in place in this particular town.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They heard the Dalton gang was coming back!

[gdani]

The state has the right to regulate the free exercise of a "right" so long as the restrictions are reasonable as to time, place, and manner

"Time, place & manner" restrictions only apply to one right -- free speech.

[AngryJawa]

Have you ever heard of a town making a "Statement"...

Sure, but don't you think this statement could be made a little clearer and given more teeth by, say...

Protecting a citizen from legal and financial ruin when and if he legitimately shoots a perp in his "castle".

[longtermmemmory]

this is not the first law of its kind. They usually have a conscience clause that allows a home not to have a gun. (of course if the consciencious objector has to register, then the thieves will know which home to rob.)

Does anyone have a list of the other towns which have the same requirement.

BTW: I believe it is telling that the town has no police department. This just may be a cheep way to make the town a less attractive crime target with mere PR.

[Scenic Sounds]

The problem with this sort of law is that it's so difficult to enforce. It should be coupled with an ordinance providing for random, no-knock, searches of homes to ensure compliance. ;-)

[longtermmemmory]

This law also provides for liability cover for the police. Were you robbed? Why did you not defend yourself. You know we don't have a police department.


I bet this law is more about this city council being in a urination competition with the sherrif's office over the level of service. Nothing bad can come of this law being on the books.

[LurkedLongEnough]

These people already have the right to own firearms regardless of the ordinance. (They don't need no stinkin' ordinance.)

They also have the right to vote. Doesn't mean they have to. How would people react if some ordinance required them to vote? Can you say Hussein...

[longtermmemmory]

Every house in a municipality must have water, sewage, and a host of other standards. So now every good home has to have a firearm.

The law probably has a conscience clause. We even had one when there was the military draft and presently have a conscience clause when registering with the selective service.

[longtermmemmory]

forgot to mention, can use say Jury Duty? Jury Duty is based on a mandatory service system.

[freeeee]

"That which is not prohibited is mandatory."

[thinktwice]

"Time, place & manner" restrictions only apply to one right -- free speech.

Read post 31 again ...

You have missed the fact that there are countless restrictions on the right to bear arms.

[ppaul]

See #44.

[the invisib1e hand]

there is hope.

[ppaul]

These people already have the right to own firearms regardless of the ordinance. (They don't need no stinkin' ordinance.)

You are right.
Unfortunately, just about every damned major city government in the US disagrees with you.

[gdani]

Read post 31 again ... You have missed the fact that there are countless restrictions on the right to bear arms.

There is a difference between placing limits on someone's constitutional rights (such as when the Govt claims it has a compelling interest in doing so) & forcing them to exercise constitutional rights.

The idea that one cannot be forced to exercise constitutional rights by their Govt is long established in con law.

[ppaul]

The idea that one cannot be forced to exercise constitutional rights by their Govt is long established in con law.

Care to elucidate?

[dmz]

Exactly, the state apparently can modify how one exercises (uses) that right. I fail to see how it can "require" one to exercise the right.

My prediction: If challenged, it will not stand, even in the most conservative of courts (we know it wouldn't stand if given to the 9th).

How many rights would the authorities have to violate to catch someone in non-compliance?