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 ...
>>> 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.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
I remember the Brady Bunch screaming that this would lead to “blood running in the streets!”
It didn’t.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.