>>> 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.
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.
Are you a lawyer? A professor or just being difficult. This is their way of telling Obama and the gun control crowd to f off.