Skip to comments.Georgia Town Passes Law Requiring Residents To Own Guns
Posted on 04/02/2013 4:31:08 AM PDT by Biggirl
(Reuters) - A small Georgia town on Monday passed a law requiring the head of each household to own a gun as a way to keep crime down.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
About 10-12 miles south of me. Real small town.
It’s been that way for decades in Kennesaw.
“When seconds matter, the police are minutes away”
Sounds like sage advice to own a gun...
I live in a town of 600 people (it was about 1200 when I was young) and the percentage of homes with guns is almost 100% without a law.
There are differences, some have very full gun cabinets in the den. And a few antlers on the walls. And in the shop is a lot of reloading equipment.
For those fools who stupidly and selfishly spoke out against it, one has to wonder if the thought that any criminal would think if they had signs up at the city limits like the zero tolerance for drugs signs I see?
They would have to take a wild guess who did and who didn't. Then if those same fools began some legal action against it, just have the neighbor put a security sign up in his yard. I would wager my home they never thought of these.
The answer to insanity is NOT more insanity.
This sounds like a setup.
Or rather being realistic because the police do take minutes to respond.
What is the difference between mandatory purchase of health care insurance and firearms?
Big difference is that it is a local town decision, Obamacare is nationwide.
Watch this video and pass it around.
Good point to bring up. More hypocrisy from the Obama cabal. The unconstitutionally twice elected Kenyan forces me to buy health insurance, which is not a constitutional right, while the other “health insurance” is banned which *is* a constitutional right.
This is not a first for Georgia. Kennesaw,
Georgia passed such an ordinance two or three decades ago and it immediately cut down on the crime rate. See John Lott’s book. “More guns, Less crime.”
Ok. Conservatives should not be for this if we really represent freedom. Forced by government to own gun and we are aplauding really? I am 100 percent for the Second Amendment but I don’t want to be forced to own a gun by the government. I own some guns but that was by choice. What is going on with Conservatives?????
I understand your point.
I’d posit that this is no worse than requiring smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, though.
Id posit that this is no worse than requiring smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, though.
That is a good point.
>>> Big difference is that it is a local town decision, Obamacare is nationwide.
That is not what makes the ordinance unconstitutional.
Constitutional rights apply at all levels.
In this case, the town should consider erecting a sign outside town for incoming Mennonites warning them that they must violate their religious rights to comply with the law if they want to live there.
>>> What is going on with Conservatives?????
How do we know the town council is conservative?
Like I said before... I smell setup.
.....Or is it a call for the local citizens to be responsible for their own protection and not depend on police?
You have to figure, these folks see Kennesaw doing it, so they figure why not them?
When i say i smell setup, what I mean is that I speculate that at least one council member is anti-2nd amendment.
The strategy by a speculative anti-gun activist would be to generate a situation that is BOTH unconstitutional, AND ensures that someone who SHOULD NOT have a gun ends up getting it and creates another Sandy Hook situation for example.
“That is not what makes the ordinance unconstitutional.
Constitutional rights apply at all levels.
In this case, the town should consider erecting a sign outside town for incoming Mennonites warning them that they must violate their religious rights to comply with the law if they want to live there.”
The ordinance exempts Quakers and simpering Queers - any with “Beliefs” against guns.
The difference (for some) is
mandatory liberal purchase = bad
mandatory conservative purchase = good
control freaks of all stripes fighting over how to rearrange the deck chairs. :-)
It should be a requirement that only those who own guns are allowed to vote.
>>> The ordinance exempts Quakers and simpering Queers - any with Beliefs against guns.
Ahhh... then how can they call it mandatory?
It doesn’t make much sense to pass an ordinance that is NOT mandatory. That in itself (guns aside) works towards undermining the rule of law.
That, and the town only has 1 policeman.
I think the resolution was incorrectly phrased.
“Heads of households” is far too subjective a term and could get mired in technicalities. It is an older expression, and for unrelated reasons has been somewhat compromised, legally.
Instead, a much better term which has good objective standing in the courts: “All adult persons of good character.”
‘Adult’ is defined in the law, as is ‘persons’, men and women, and ‘good character’ is also objective and defined in the law. It means no felony convictions that preclude gun ownership, no mental illness that precludes gun ownership, etc.
Likewise, while this can be done at a town or city level, it would be best done by a county government, because in Common Law, the Sheriff is automatically the leader of the local militia, and can deputize “All adult persons of good character”, as effectively Law Enforcement Officers, to *protect* them from the confiscation of arms.
The people of the County, being “required” to be armed, (which is in no way checked, certified, or prosecuted if they aren’t), gives them the legal status of police. So unless the gun-grabbers outlaw a gun for *police* use, in the *entire* state, they cannot do so to deputized citizens.
Imagine the effect is some DHS wonk went to a Sheriff’s office to demand that his department turn over all its guns to the federals. Why? Because I say so!
The DHS wonk would likely quickly find himself wearing County pajamas and behind bars.
Shades of Switzerland!
Conservative doesn’t mean libertarian. Besides, we all have a responsibility as well as a right to defend ourselves- nothing wrong with a law that requires people to live up to their responsibility.
Did you read the article?
Mandatory gun ownership is unconstitutional.
I hope someone DOES challenge this, so that a connection to Obamacare can be made plain in a way that liberals will understand.
Not exactly. From the article:
The Nelson ordinance exempts convicted felons, residents with physical and mental disabilities and those who do not believe in owning firearms, Cronic said.While I don't always click the link for excerpted articles, especially reuters, it is sometimes beneficial to read the article in order to know a little bit about what you are discussing.
Late to the party. Kennesaw GA did it decades ago.
I remember the Brady Bunch screaming that this would lead to “blood running in the streets!”
You may laugh at those signs today, but back in 1968 there was a movement to place a “THIS HOUSE IS NOT ARMED” in windows.
The sign fad did not last long.
Please see my post # 29.
A law is either mandatory, or it is not.
It does not make much sense to pass a law that is not mandatory.
This practice of passing optional laws is a very bad one.
Well, you do need to know that Kennesaw (now some 30,000 + people) did have 2 guns deaths since our law was passed in the 70’s.
One, a couple of out-of-towner’s in a Motel 8 by I-75 got in a fight, and the woman was killed. Neither was a residence of Kennesaw, so she was not able to defend herself, and his weapon was NOT affected by the Kennesaw gun law.
The second happened when a Kennesaw city cop was killed. On the job.
By a Marietta City cop.
In a police gun range.
Run by the City of Marietta.
I looked up the demographics for Kennesaw. It has a very “diverse” population.
The factor resulting in lower crime is that there is a consensus of acceptable behavior, and that standard is not “liberal”.
>>> The Nelson ordinance exempts convicted felons, residents with physical and mental disabilities and those who do not believe in owning firearms, Cronic said.
Another thing I find interesting here...
In the case of convicted felons and the disabled, we don’t really have an “exemption”, but rather a clarification of PRECEDENCE of one law over another.
In the case of religious freedom or belief, we have a CHOICE.
Please think about what the specifics of the application of this law says about religious freedom and the dangerous precedence that it sets;
One could argue that by exempting religious belief, the lawmaker is establishing a preference for religion that places that or any religion “above the law”.
We see the same thing in Obamacare... for if you are a muslim who doesn’t believe in gambling, and your religion classifies insurance as gambling, you are not required to purchase health insurance... while other faiths are excluded by omission.
This is why the constitution states that congress shall make NO LAW which establishes OR prohibits the free exercise thereof.
Which is it that the Nelson gun ordinance violates? The freedom to not believe? or the compulsion to believe???
The argument can be made for either, depending on your desire or CHOICE to own a gun.
Do you not see how the law is being directed at CORPORATE society as opposed to the individual?
Laws which are unenforceable for ANY reason are useless, and serve only to undermine the general RULE of law which requires that all laws be fully and evenly enforced to be effective in society.
And it works.
In America, as the Western frontier illustrated way back when, the presence of guns tended to enforce a taboo structure which kniotted society together. Policital correctness has unraveled that, just as it was aimed to do.
Years ago (decades, actually) when I got my first concealed carry permit in Calhoun County, AL, the act made one an automatic reserve deputy, and the Sheriff could call upon any and all CCP folks in a County emergency. Seemed like a good idea back then, since Fort McClelland (chem-bio weaponry storage facilities) is in that county.
Who is laughing? I was serious as a heart attack. I have an idiot next door neighbor and bought one of those signs to make a point. I did not place it but instead showed it to her from my yard. She almost freaked out, but she did admit she got the point.
I was working at the time for the federal judge who heard the constitutionality question on the (almost identical) Kennesaw gun ordinance, back in the 1980s. It's constitutional, because of the "conscience" exemption.
None of the consequences you fear have transpired in the 30 years since the Kennesaw ordinance went into effect.
>>> None of the consequences you fear have transpired in the 30 years since the Kennesaw ordinance went into effect.
I was not speaking to Kennesaw, but in general practice.
Would you say that the Rule of Law is stronger today in society? or weaker?